M.N.BHANDARI,J. - (1.) By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 14.07.2016, passed by the Board of Revenue, 04.10.2002 passed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority and the judgment and decree dated 05.07.1984, passed by the Assistant Collector and District Magistrate, Bayana.
(2.) It is stated that in a suit preferred by the respondents, notice were issued but without its service, it was decreed. The petitioner was not residing at the place where notices were sent and it was reported by the Process Server yet "Chaspabandi" was made on the same date i.e. 23.02.1984. The court then proceeded ex-parte without taking notice that the petitioner has not been served.
(3.) The respondents are none else but brothers son, wife and daughter of late Shri Kishorilal (brother of petitioner) and were knowing that the petitioner is serving in the Employees State Insurance Department at Jaipur. The petitioner could not know about the decree immediately on its passing or within reasonable time. When he could know about it, immediately filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority along with application for condonation of delay. The reason of delay was given but without considering it properly, the application for condonation of delay as well as appeal was dismissed followed by dismissal of appeal by the Board of Revenue. All the courts ignored the fact that ex-parte decree was passed without service of notice to the petitioner thus could not come in the knowledge of the petitioner. In view of the above, all the orders deserve to be set aside. The reference of the judgment in the cases of Smt. Kamlesh Alias Kamla v. Mukesh Yadav reported in 2012 WLC (Raj.) UC 237, Smruti Pahariya v. Sanjay Pahariya reported in 2009(4) RLW 3070 (SC) and Ghisya (since deceased) represented by legal heirs v. Kailash Chand, SB Civil Writ Petition No. 9070/2009 decided on 04.03.2012 has been given, wherein, it has been held that the procedure of "Chaspabandi" can be applied only when notices are not accepted by the party. In the instant case, the petitioner did not refuse to accept the notice, rather, as per the remarks of the process server, the petitioner was not even available. In the light of the judgment referred above, service of notice on the petitioner could not have been accepted. The prayer is to set aside all the three orders.;