ORDER R.S. Garg, J. 1. Shri Kale, Senior counsel with Shri Greeshm Jain for the petitioner. 2. Shri P.D. Gupta, learned Govt. Advocate and Shri V.K. Shukla learned counsel for the respondents who have already filed their return. 3. With the consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard. 4. The respondent no. 3 who is present in the Court has been joined as respondent no. 4 handed over the original record for perusal. The original record has been perused by this Court. 5. It appears that the proceedings under Section 248 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code were drawn against the petitioner. The Tehsildar (Rajdhani Pariyojna) directed issuance of notice to the present petitioner. Notice dated 19.1.99 could not be served on the petitioner, therefore on 12. 2. 99 the said Tehsildar directed that fresh show cause notice be issued to the petitioner for filing its reply and on his refusal to accept the notice, the notice may be affixed in accordance with Schedule I of the M.P. Land Revenue Code. Fresh notice dated 12.2.99 was issued and the same was returned to the Tehsildar with the service report that the notice was affixed on the wall of the petitioner's office in presence of two witnesses. On basis of this service report, the Tehsildar proceeded exparte under Section 35 (2) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, passed a final order and directed dispossession of the petitioner. It appears that on 27.2.99 the petitioner through its Chairman made an application to the Nazul Officer for issuance of Patta. The Nazul Officer directed his reader to place the application with the record of encroachment case. It does not appear from the said application and the endorsement made on the application that the petitioner was directed to appear before the Tehsildar. The document shows that the application was received by Tehsildar on 1.3.99. While passing order dated 19.3.99, the Tehsildar did not issue any notice to the petitioner before rejecting its application dated 27.2.99 nor did make an enquiry from the process server whether he served the notice in accordance with directions dated 12.2.99 or the service was valid in accordance with Rules 14 and 15 of Schedule I of the M.P. Land Revenue Code. After the final order was passed, the petitioner was dispossessed and the respondents put a lock on the premises belonging to the petitioner and also demolished part of the construction raised by the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the action of respondents, the petitioner has filed this petition. 6. I have heard the parties at length. 7. Rule 14 of Schedule I provides that if service of the notice cannot be effected in the manner provided in rules 11, 12 and 13 a copy thereof may be affixed at the last known place of residence of the person concerned or at some place of public resort in the village in which the land to which the notice relates is situate or from which the land is cultivated. Rule 15 of Schedule I provides that where a copy of the notice is affixed as provided in rule 14, the serving officer shall return the original copy of the notice to the officer who issued it, with a report endorsed thereon or annexed thereto stating that he has so affixed the copy, the circumstances under which he did so, the name and address of the person in whose presence the copy was affixed and where the copy is affixed at the last known place of residence of person noticed, the report shall also contain the name and address of the person by whom the house was identified. On a perusal of the proceedings dated 12.2.99 it would clearly appear that the Tehsildar had rather directed the serving officer to serve the notice by affixure in case the notice refused to accept the notice. On back of the notice dated 12.2.99 there was report of the serving officer which reads as. I This report is signed by the serving officer and signatures of two witnesses are also appended on the back of the notice. On a perusal of the report submitted by the serving officer, one can immediately without any hesitation say that the serving officer did not comply with the directions of the Tehsildar. The serving officer was authorised to serve the notice by affixure only, in case the notice was refusing to receive the notice. This illegality in itself is sufficient to challenge the validity of the service and presumption of Tehsildar that the petitioner was properly served. The serving officer was authorised to serve the notice by affixure only, in case the notice was refusing to receive the notice. This illegality in itself is sufficient to challenge the validity of the service and presumption of Tehsildar that the petitioner was properly served. This service report does not comply with requirement of Rule 15 of Schedule I. It does not state that under what circumstances, the serving officer had affixed the copy. It does not say that why he was required to affix the copy. It does not give the complete address of the persons in whose presence the copy was affixed. It does not appear from the proceedings dated 4.3.99 that the Tehsildar ever thought to consider whether the notice was properly served or not. Section 35 (2) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code authorises the officer to proceed with the hearing in absence of party. According to Section 35 (2) if any party to a case or proceeding before a Revenue Officer does not appear on the date fixed for hearing after due service of a notice or summons on him the case may be heard and determined in his absence or may be dismissed in default, as the case may be. Before proceeding under Section 35 (2) it is expected of the authority that he would first determine that there was due service of notice on the notice or not. In absence of evidence to this effect that there was due service of notice, the presiding officer would not be authorised to proceed for exparte hearing. Proceedings dated 4.3.99 simply record that the non-applicant (present petitioner) was served by affixure and the service notice was kept in the record. In view of Section 35 (2) of the Code, the proceedings were taken exparte and the statements of N.M.S. were directed to be recorded. From the proceedings dated 4.3.99 it does not appear that the basic requirement were complied with or the Tehsildar gave his full consideration to the report or provisions of law. 8. Learned counsel for the State submits that on 27.2.99 petitioner had made an application to the Nazul Officer, therefore, it must be presumed that the petitioner had the knowledge about the proceedings under Section 248 of the Code. In the opinion of this Court the argument is misconceived. 8. Learned counsel for the State submits that on 27.2.99 petitioner had made an application to the Nazul Officer, therefore, it must be presumed that the petitioner had the knowledge about the proceedings under Section 248 of the Code. In the opinion of this Court the argument is misconceived. The application dated 27.2.99 simply bears an endorsement in its margin that the application be placed with encroachment case. It no where says that the petitioner was required to appear before the Tehsildar on a particular date, possibly because Nazul Officer himself did not know that on what particular date the case was fixed. It does not appear from the application dated 27.2.99 or the endorsement made on the margin on it that the Tehsildar after receiving the application ever issued any notice to the petitioner for the appearance of the petitioner before the Tehsildar. The proceedings were taken on 4.3.99. On 4.3.99 the application submitted by the petitioner to the Nazul Officer was rejected by Tehsildar. I am unable to understand as to how an application submitted before the Nazul Officer who was competent to decide the application could be rejected by the Tehsildar who was authorised and entitled to take proceedings under Section 248 of the Code only. The final order dated 8.3.99 records that as the petitioner's application for grant of Patta was rejected by the State Government, he was liable to be removed under the proceedings. A fine of Rs. 1500/- was imposed and a direction for dispossession was also issued. 9. From the complete records which are available before me, I am unable to hold that the Tehsildar or the serving officer complied with the basic requirement of law in serving the petitioner or in holding that the petitioner was duly served. As the petitioner was not served either in accordance with the directions of the Tehsildar or in accordance with the rules as contained in Schedule I of the Code, I have no hesitation in holding that the final order stands vitiated. The final order dated 8.3.99 and all subsequent proceedings taken by the State deserve to and are accordingly quashed. The respondents are obliged to deliver back the possession of the property to the petition or before 29.4.99. The petitioner shall appear before the Tehsildar on 3rd of May, 1999 for filing its reply. The final order dated 8.3.99 and all subsequent proceedings taken by the State deserve to and are accordingly quashed. The respondents are obliged to deliver back the possession of the property to the petition or before 29.4.99. The petitioner shall appear before the Tehsildar on 3rd of May, 1999 for filing its reply. If the petitioner filed the reply, Tehsildar shall proceed to decide the matter in accordance with law after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. But if the petitioner either personally or through its agent or counsel does not appear before the Tehsildar on the date so fixed, the Tehsildar shall be free to proceed exparte and pass final order in accordance with law. 10. It is however, made clear that this Court has not considered the case of the present petitioner for grant of Patta in his favour because in the opinion of this Court, this petition could be disposed of on the above referred grounds. The petitioner is, however, free to approach a proper forum for ventilating its grievance. 11. To the extent indicated above, the petition is allowed. There shall be no orders as to costs. 12. C.C. of the order be supplied to the parties within three days. Petition allowed