- (1.) By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge has remitted the matter back to the Revenue Appellate Authority.
(2.) The counsel for the appellant contended that contrary finding has been recorded by the learned Single Judge while considering the matter, which reads as under: "Aggrieved by the order dated 8.1.1990, the defendants immediately filed an appeal before the RAA. During the pendency of the appeal, Ogadi Lal expired and petitioner No. 1 Smt. Kastoori Bai was brought on the record as his legal representative. Vide order dated 26.8.1993, the RAA partly accepted the appeal and remanded the case to the Assistant Collector after receiving the record from the Board, the same were returned as unserved. Since notices were unserved, he was of the opinion that opportunity should be given to Ogadi Lal, Gordhan Lal and Chittarlal to produce their evidence. The RAA thus, directed the Assistant Collector to give an opportunity of hearing to the appellants to produce their evidence and to decide the case issue-wise. Since the original plaintiffs were aggrieved by the order dated 26.8.1993, they filed a second appeal before the learned Board. Vide judgment dated 19.1.1996, the learned Board partly accepted the second appeal and modified the order of RAA to the extent that RAA could not give any finding about the sufficiency or insufficiency of service of notice upon Ogadi Lal, Gordhan Lal and Chittarlal. Therefore, the objection raised by the appellants before the learned Board was accepted. However, the Board remanded the case to the RAA for its decision issue-wise." 2.1 However, in concluding para he observed as under:- "Having decided the legal issues, let us look at the factual matrix of this case, according to Mr. R.P. Garg, the observation made by the RAA that "none of the three respondents, Ogadi Lal, Gordhan Lal and Chhitarlal were duly served", is contrary to the evidence available on record. According to the report of the process server, notices were duly served upon Gordhan Lal and Chittarlal. As far as Ogadi Lal is concerned, the process server had clearly recorded that "when he went to the village looking for Ogadi Lal, he was informed that Ogadi Lal no longer lives in the village, but he is living in Kota. Moreover, he found that Ogadi Lal's house was locked." Since the record clearly reveals that Gordhan Lal and Chhitarlal were, indeed, served the notice, the observations made by RAA that notices were served upon Gordhan Lal and Chhitarlal, such an observation is contrary to the record. Since the finding of the RAA is contrary to the record, this Court has no other option but to quash and set aside the orders dated 19.1.1996 and 26.8.1993 and to remand the case back to the RAA. The RAA is directed to go through the complete record and to re-appreciate the evidence on the point of sufficiency or insufficiency of service of notice upon Ogadi Lal, Gordhan Lal and Chittarlal and to pass the order in accordance with law."
(3.) Counsel for the respondent has supported the order of the learned Single Judge.;