JUDGMENT V. Kumar, C. - This is a revision under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act in a case of demarcation against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Bareilly dated July 18, 1972. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Nand Kishore and other moved an application for demarcation of certain plots. The Supervisor Kanungo carried out demarcation and submitted his report on November 30, 1968. Atar Singh and others filed objections. After consideration the evidence of the parties the trial court confirmed the report of the S.K. on February 25, 1969 but on appeal the learned Additional Commissioner remanded the case for fresh decision after giving opportunity to the parties to produce their evidence. The trial court thereafter considering the evidence of the parties and hearing them confirmed the report of the S.K. dated November 30, 1968 vide his order June 12, 1970. Being aggrieved by this order of the trial court Atar Singh and other went in appeal before the Additional Commissioner who dismissed it on July 18, 1972. Atar Singh and others have now come in revision before the Board under section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. 3. The opposite party is neither present nor represented by any counsel as he refused to take the notice. I have, therefore, heard the learned counsel for the revisionists and gone through the records of the case. 4. It was argued on behalf of the revisionist that S.K. had not made the correct measurements of the plots after determining the two fixed points. The Gul of Tube Well cannot be a fixed point. The S.K. had also not mentioned. what area was less and what area was in excess in the various plots. The learned counsel further urged that no notice was served on Karan Singh, revisionist No. 2 and as such the entire proceedings of the case are vitiated. Lastly the learned counsel urged that there is no encroachment over the land of the opposite party Nand Kishore. He has wrongly moved the application for demarcation to harrass the revisionists. 5. I have considered the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the revisionists. I find force in his arguments. The S.K. has carried out the measurements from the Gul of the Tube Well. The Gul of the Tube Well cannot be a fixed point. He has wrongly moved the application for demarcation to harrass the revisionists. 5. I have considered the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the revisionists. I find force in his arguments. The S.K. has carried out the measurements from the Gul of the Tube Well. The Gul of the Tube Well cannot be a fixed point. He should have first determined two fixed points before demarcation of the plots. The notice of Karan Singh was served of his father Risal Singh. This was not a sufficient service. The notice should have been served on Karan Singh personally. In these circumstances the order of the trial court is bad in law and the case should be remanded for fresh decision according to law. 6. In the result, I allow the revision, set aside the orders of the Additional Commissioner dated July 18, 72 and that of the S.D.O. dated June 12, 1970 and remand the case to the trial court for fresh decision in accordance with law.