JUDGMENT Nathoo Lal, Member - This is a reference made by the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra in revision No. 94 of 82-83 under Section 198 (4) of the U.P.Z.A and L.R Act. This revision was preferred by Sri Tej Singh against the order dated 11-6-81 passed by the Additional Collector, Etah in case No. 181 under Section 198 (4) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. Briefly speaking the facts of the case are proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act were initiated on the complaint of Sri Ram Bharose against the allotment of Gaon Samaj land made in favour of 57 persons of the village and the Additional Collector under his order dated 16-2-81 held that the leases were executed on the basis of the meetings of the L.M.C. held on 23-10-73 and 7-12-75 and the learned Additional Collector cancelled the allotment made in the meetings of 23-9-73 and 23-10-73 and also the allotment made in favour of Nekse and Ulfat Singh in the meeting of 7-12-75. While passing the order of cancellation of allotment the learned Additional Collector also observed that in respect of the allotment made in favour of the revisionist and several others, no notice had been issued as required under law and hence no orders could be passed without giving them required notices. Notices were accordingly issued to the revisionist and others Smt. Rambeli, Sarvashri Lala Ram, Tej Singh, Raghunath, Raja Ram Ramnath Singh, Subedar, Hari Ram, Gulab and Nabi Jan but in spite of notices no body appeared to oppose and the learned Additional Collector therefore passed an order against the revisionist and other persons to whom notices were given and cancelled the allotments made in their favour under his order dated 11-6-81. Aggrieved persons including the revisionist Tej Singh sought restoration on the ground that no notice had actually been given to them nor they could have any knowledge about the proceedings and the report regarding the allegations of refusal were not correct. The versions were supported by affidavits also but the learned Additional Collector refused to agree with the grounds and held that the versions of the applicants about Ignorance of proceedings could not be believed and accordingly the restoration applications were rejected on 9-11-81. The versions were supported by affidavits also but the learned Additional Collector refused to agree with the grounds and held that the versions of the applicants about Ignorance of proceedings could not be believed and accordingly the restoration applications were rejected on 9-11-81. This revision has been preferred by Sri Tej Singh only who is one of the applicants seeking restoration of the order under revision. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the record. 4. The only point on which the learned counsel for the revisionist has pressed during the course of his arguments is with regard to the service of notice and his contentions are that since no notice has been served on the revisionist which is mandatory the impugned order cannot be sustained and must be set aside. 5. The learned D.G.C. on the other hand, has argued that the revision has been sought against the order dated 11-5-81 which has been passed by the learned Additional Collector on merits and no revision has been preferred against the order passed on the restoration application. As a matter of fact the revision must have also been preferred against the order dated 9-11-81 by which the restoration application of the revisionist was rejected The only point involved is with regard to the service of notice on the revisionist it is an admitted fact and is also proved from the record that notice to the revisionist as well as to other persons were issued and no orders could be passed by the learned Additional Collector earlier along with the consideration of allotment of all the other persons. Separate notices were therefore issued and the report of the tehsil staff and of the process server clearly speak that notices were carried to the persons concerned but the revisionist along with other persons refused to sign in lieu of service which was effected by showing the notices to the person concerned who very well read the notices and returned them refusing to put their signatures or thumb impressions in token of Service. 6. I do not find any reasonable ground to disbelieve the endorsement made on the notice disclosing that the revisionist refused to sign the notice in lieu of service. 6. I do not find any reasonable ground to disbelieve the endorsement made on the notice disclosing that the revisionist refused to sign the notice in lieu of service. It is also a strong circumstantial piece of evidence that when the allotment in favour of three or four dozen persons had been cancelled the revisionist must have derived knowledge about the proceedings of cancellation of allotments going on in the court of the Additional Collector as the case being of extraordinary nature ought to have become a matter of common discussion and knowledge in the village particularly for the persons whose interest was itself involved in the allotment proceedings and therefore the observations made by the learned Additional Collector to this effect while passing the order dated 9-11-81 could not be ignored so far as the knowledge of the proceedings to the allots is concerned. Moreover, it appears that only one person has felt aggrieved and preferred this revision while several others were satisfied with the orders of the Additional Collector and the simple reason for which appears to have been that the notices were served on all of them due to which they could not find any ground to challenge the order. I therefore do not find sufficient reasons to agree with the recommendations of the Additional Commissioner made in the reference and the reference cannot be accepted. The revision is accordingly dismissed.