- (1.)THE State has preferred a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against an order Annexure P/13 passed by the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue has remanded the matter back to the competent authority to determine the surplus area afresh after affording due opportunity to the petitioner. It came to the conclusion that a service of the order on the respondent was net in accordance with law. It has also recorded a finding that some fictitious record was prepared with a view to show that the present respondent Balram was duly served.
(2.)I have gone through the order, annexure P/13 as also annexure P/10. In annexure P/10, it has been categorically mentioned that that process server did not visit the village where the landowner is 'residing but went to different village.
As such, the order annexure P/13 cannot be said to be vitiated. There is no error of law. It has been based on a finding of fact with regard to the question whether service was properly effected or not. As such, it would not be proper to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is, however, made clear, that if during the pendency of the litigation some land has been declared surplus and some landless have been settled then their possession would not be disturbed.

(3.)AFTER remand and adjudication of surplus area in accordance with law, the possession would be taken status quo with regard to possession would be maintained till matter in re -decided.