KARAM CHAND Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In compliance with the order dated 04.07.2019, Sri J.H. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner has served respondent Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 by means of Dasti service and has filed an affidavit of service of date. A perusal of the affidavit of service shows that respondent No.5 Vijay Kumar Tondon is dead, but in the submission of Sri Khan, his heirs and legal representatives, Dheeraj Tondon, is already on record as respondent No.8. Respondent No.6 Ajay Kumar Tondon, could not be served as he is out of town. So far as respondent Nos. 7 and 8 Sushil Tondon and Dheeraj Tondon, respectively are concerned, they have refused to accept notice in the presence of two witnesses, who have signed the endorsement of refusal in their presence. The affidavit of service is taken on record.

(2.) Sri Alok Kumar Yadav, has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.4. It is submitted that respondent Nos. 6,7 and 8 have transferred their interest in the property in dispute, and, therefore, have no further interest to contest these proceedings. Under the circumstances, no further steps need to be taken to serve these respondents. Liberty is, however, granted to respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8, in the event they feel aggrieved by this order, to make an application in the decided petition.

(3.) Heard Sri J.H. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Alok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 and Sri Vishnu Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.