JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The main grievance of the petitioner before me is that the Consolidation Officer has not issued necessary notices to the persons interested in the disputed land and has also adopted the illegal procedure of publication in the facts and circumstances of the case. Which is not contemplated by the provisions of the Act in quest on. 2. After hearing learned counsel for the Petitioner, I also feel that the petitioner's attitude is nothing but to delay the hearing of the case in some manner or the other. The very emphasis that the authorities should adhere to serve the interested persons strictly in accordance with law specially when the Petitioner himself has come to know about the proceedings and is aware of the same. I have examined the array of Parties and I find that most of the opposite parties are residents of the Villages near the disputed land. In accordance with rule 58 (2) if the Consolidation Officer affixes a copy of the notice at some place of public resort on or adjacent to the land to which such a notice refer, the compliance of law would be sufficient However, in the Present case, it appears that the brothers of the Petitioner are residents of Delhi and they can be served only through registered post or they can be intimated by the petitioner about the proceedings regarding consolidation in the village. The attitude of the petitioner appears to me that he is not willing to inform his brothers as they are not at good terms with the petitioner. In such a circumstance it would be proper for the Consolidation Officer to intimate the opposite parties nos. 13 and 14 in the present writ petition, namely, Suresh Chand and Mahesh Chand sons of Brahma Prakash residents of Shankaracharya Marg, New Delhi, about the date of hearing fixed by him in the case. According to the order of the revisional court the Parties have been directed to appear before the Consolidation Officer on 29-8-1988. On that date, the case should not by decided by the Consolidation Officer without satisfying himself about service of the notice upon the persons interested in the disputed land. According to the order of the revisional court the Parties have been directed to appear before the Consolidation Officer on 29-8-1988. On that date, the case should not by decided by the Consolidation Officer without satisfying himself about service of the notice upon the persons interested in the disputed land. To me, it appears, that the Consolidation Officer should fix another date after one month from 29-8-1988 and intimate the opposite parties Suresh Chand and Mahesh Chand through registered post and he should affix notices strictly in accordance with rule 58 (2) so that in future no restoration application or for setting aside the order passed by the Consolidation Officer may be necessitated. 3. With the above observation, I am not at all inclined to exercise my power under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioner who is well aware of the consolidation proceedings before the consolidation authorities and he should appear before the Consolidation Officer on 29-8-1988. 4. The Writ Petition is dismissed in limine.