JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - This is an application for a writ of certiorari directed against the revisional order of the Board of Revenue in a proceeding arising out of a settlement made under the Orissa Offices of the village police (Abolition) Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 4. 72 acres of land situated in village Themera in the district of Sambalpur constituted the former Jhankar Jagir. On abolition of office the Petitioner laid claim for settlement of the said land with him. Accordingly V.P.A. Case No. 73 of 1965-66 was registered before the Tahasildar Sambalpur. He ultimately passed an order of settlement of the land with the Petitioner on 6-6-1968. The opposite parties 1 and 2 who were not parties to the proceeding filed an appeal before the Additional District Magistrate of Sambalpur against the order on 16-1-1970. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal by refusing to condone the delay in the making of it. Against the Appellant decision of dismissal the opp. parties 1 and 2 carried 11 revision under the Act to the Board of Revenue. The Member, Board of Revenue by the impugned order dated 2-8-1973 in Revision case No. 10 of 1971 came to bold, The next contention of the Petitioner that no general notice was served to enable him to file the objection, if any, deserves consideration. In the present case, it is seen that u/s 6 (rule 6) of the Village Police (Abolition) Rules, 1964, a general notice has to be served by beat of drum under the provision of CPC in presence of not more than two persons of the locality in some conspicuous place of the village. In the instant case it is seen that the general notice was not available on record to prove due publication thereof. Absence of such an important record from a case file throws a doubt about due publication of general notice and it cannot be presumed that general notice was served in the manner provided under the CPC unless the said notice in original is traceable from the case record. The Petitioner, therefore, should not have been deprived of the valuable rights to file his objections to decide the case on merit. He accordingly set aside the settlement of the Tahasildar and directed the matter to be considered again. It is against this revisional order that the writ application has been directed. The Petitioner, therefore, should not have been deprived of the valuable rights to file his objections to decide the case on merit. He accordingly set aside the settlement of the Tahasildar and directed the matter to be considered again. It is against this revisional order that the writ application has been directed. 2. Mr. Murty for the Petitioner contends: (1) The Member, Board of Revenue, has clearly gone wrong in stating in his order that the Petitioner before him (opposite party No. 1) had not appeared to contest in spite of notice. As a fact Mr. Murty for the said opp. party had appeared and was heard; (2) The appeal having been barred by limitation and there having been no determination that the order of the appellate authority on the question of limitation was bad, there could be interference. (3) There having been a finding that the opp. parties 1 and 2 were in possession there could be no question of any settlement at all. 3. The Petitioner has given an affidavit that he was heard in the Board of Revenue through counsel. There is no serious contest to such assertion. It is, however, not necessary for us to decide as to whether the Petitioner who was the opposite party in the proceeding before the Board of Revenue was actually heard or not because disposal of this writ application does not turn upon that feature. 4. It is not disputed that the general notice is a statutory requirement and since rights to property are to be adjudicated under the act and determination of the dispute should very much depend upon adequate publication of such notice, we agree with the Member, Board of Revenue that due compliance of that statutory requirement is an important condition precedent to the disposal of the proceeding in accordance with law. On an examination of the record the Member, Board of Revenue has not have been his objections to come to hold that there has been no publication. The order sheet of the case (annex. 2) also does not show that there was any such publication and on examination of the record the Tahasildar has nowhere appended a certificate of satisfaction in regard to publication or service of notice. In that view of the matter the settlement with the Petitioner as granted by the Tahasildar was act without jurisdiction. 5. 2) also does not show that there was any such publication and on examination of the record the Tahasildar has nowhere appended a certificate of satisfaction in regard to publication or service of notice. In that view of the matter the settlement with the Petitioner as granted by the Tahasildar was act without jurisdiction. 5. The question of limitation very much turn upon due service of notice. The Additional District Magistrate had relied upon the fact that the father of the opposite party No. 1 had filed an application before the Collector. In the absence of any material to impute notice to the opposite parties 1 and 2 of such a proceeding we are not prepped to find against them on the basis of such an application. The question of limitation, therefore, is really not a substantial obstacle in the success of the opposite parties in obtaining an order of remand from the Board of Revenue. 6. Similarly the finding regarding want of possession, in the absence of affording an opportunity to the opposite parties 1 and 2 of participating in the enquiry and leading evidence, is of no consequence. Mere cancellation of the sikimi entry in the revenue record is not conclusive evidence of want of possession at the material point of time. Given an opportunity it was open to the opposite parties 1 and 2 to satisfy the appropriate authority that they were in possession on the relevant date. Mr. Behura for the opposite parties takes the stand that the correction in the revenue record also did not cover the entire property. 7. Looking at the matter from a different angle we find that the order of the Board of Revenue is in aid of Justice. The opposite parties 1 and 2 had been making a grievance that the settlement of a considerable extent of land had been granted in favour of the Petitioner without giving them an opportunity of being heard. Realising the importance of the matter the Board of Revenue has reopened the matter. Now both the parties have got opportunity of leading evidence and raising appropriate contest over the matter. Realising the importance of the matter the Board of Revenue has reopened the matter. Now both the parties have got opportunity of leading evidence and raising appropriate contest over the matter. When the order of the Board of Revenue gives the contenders a reasonable opportunity, we do not think we should allow our extraordinary jurisdiction to be invoked to set at naught the opportunity made available by the order of the Board of Revenue to the opposite parties 1 and 2, particularly in the background of a finding of fact that the statutory notice had not been served. The writ application must accordingly, fail. It is dismissed, but without costs. B.K. Ray, J. 8. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed