CHILLER Vs. D.D.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A perusal of the office report dated 24.04.2015 shows that notices issued to respondent Nos. 3/1/1 to 3/1/3, 3/2/1 to 3/2/3 and 3/3 by RPAD fixing 29.04.2015, have led to a postal return where neither acknowledgment has been received nor the undelivered covers. As such, service upon the aforesaid respondents is deemed sufficient and is held good. So far as respondent Nos. 4/1, 4/2/1, 4/3, 5/1 and 5/2 are concerned, Sri Dinesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on their behalf. However, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of these respondents by him. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of any other respondent as well.

(2.) This writ petition is of the year 1985. When the case is called on, no one appears on behalf of any of the private respondents. Sri R.B. Ram, learned Standing Counsel is present on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

(3.) This writ petition is directed against the orders dated 31.05.1985 and 20.10.1984, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria, and the Consolidation Officer (Record Operations), Deoria respectively.