BAIRO Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION BALLIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition was admitted on 20.2.1976 and an interim order was passed to the effect that till further orders of the Court, the Petitioners shall not be dispossessed from the land in dispute. The said interim order is continuing till today.

(2.) Notices were issued to the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, who are the contesting Respondents and notice on behalf of the Gaon Sabha was accepted by the learned Counsel for the Gaon Sabha but none has responded so far either by filing a counter affidavit or has assisted the Court when the matter has been taken in the revised call after 35 years of its institution.

(3.) The Court, therefore, has no option but to proceed with the matter keeping in view the report submitted by the Office that the notices sent to the Respondent Nos. 4,5 and 6 have been despatched but neither the undelivered cover nor the acknowledgment has been received back. Accordingly, under the Rules of the Court, the notices on the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 will be deemed to have been served. Apart from this, now there is no occasion to await for any other mode of service after 35 years of the institution of the writ petition more so when the Petitioners are in possession in terms of the interim order passed by this Court. In such a situation, it cannot be believed that the Respondents had no notice about the pendency of the proceedings, inasmuch as, the Petitioners must have filed the stay order before the authority to assert their possession.