Honble TATIA, J.–Heard learned counsel for the parties. (2). Nobody appeared on behalf of respondents No.4 & 5 despite service. (3). The brief facts of the case are that deceased Sumaran Singh in his life time was allotted land measuring 25 bighas bearing square No. 229/35 situated in chak No. 5 K.N.M.I. The allotment letter is placed on record as Annex. 1. It appears that in the year 1991 a survey was conducted in which Sumaran Singh was not found in possession of the allotted land upon which a notice dated 6th Jan., 1992 was issued in the name of allottee Sumaran Singh. The copy of notice dated 6th Jan., 1992 is placed on record as Annex. R/1. In this notice it is stated that during the survey conducted in the year 1991 allottee was not found in possession, but some one else was in the possession of the land, therefore, the allottee was directed to give his explanation. This notice bears endorsement that Sumaran Singh is not residing at chak No. 5 K.N.M.I. and he is residing at district Kangra of Himachal Pradesh. A notice was also issued to Surja Suthar- respondent No.4 on the basis of the same ground, which stated that he was treated as person in occupation of the land in dispute. This notice bears endorsement that he was also not found at his residence, therefore, the notice was affixed on the house of the said person Surja Suthar. It bears signature of one Shri Ram Chandra S/o Surja Ram. Another notice was issued on 6th June, 1992 by the same Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raisinghnagar in the name of Sumaran Singh and on this notice also there is endorsement that Sumaran Singh is residing in village Kangra of Himachal Pradesh. The Sub-Divisional Officer thereafter, published the notice in newspaper and since nobody appeared for the allottee passed the order dated 6th July, 1992 and cancelled the allotment order, which was passed in favour of Sumaran Singh. (4). The petitioner in his writ petition, submitted that in fact, Sumaran Singh expired on 21th June, 1985 and to prove this fact, the petitioner has placed on record the Death Certificate of Sumaran Singh issued on 11th April, 1987 (Ex.3). (4). The petitioner in his writ petition, submitted that in fact, Sumaran Singh expired on 21th June, 1985 and to prove this fact, the petitioner has placed on record the Death Certificate of Sumaran Singh issued on 11th April, 1987 (Ex.3). The petitioner has also placed on record the order passed by the special court, Pong Dam Oustees, Sri Ganganagar dated 29th May, 1998, which appears to have been passed against the legal representatives of deceased Sumaran Singh and the petitioner is also one of the legal representatives of Sumaran Singh being son of deceased Sumaran Singh. It appears from this order that special court has found that as per report prepared in the year 1991 and which was relied upon by the Sub-Divisional Officer, in its order dated 6th July, 1992, the allottee was not in possession of the land in dispute and he violated the Rules, therefore, cancellation of the allotment was right and the report may be sent to the State Government. (5). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 6th July, 1992 (Annex. 2) passed by the S.D.O. (Revenue), Raisinghnagar is void-ab-initio as it has been passed against a dead person and, admittedly, no steps were taken for taking on record the legal representatives of deceased Sumaran Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29th May, 1998 (Annex. 4) passed by the Special Judge (Pong Dam Oustees), Sri Ganganagar. (6). Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently submitted that Sumaran Singh was not in possession of the land in dispute and, after allotment, he was under obligation to cultivate and remain in possession of the land. The survey was conducted in the year 1991 and Sumaran Singh was not found in possession. After survey a notice was given to Sumaran Singh and since he was not in occupation of the land in dispute, therefore, notice received with endorsement that Sumaran Singh is not residing at the disputed chak, which supports the contention of the respondents that the allottee was not in possession even in the year 1992 when the notice was issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer. Further efforts were made by Sub-Divisional Officer and another notice was issued on 6th June, 1992. In that notice also there is same report, which also says that the allottee is not residing at allotted land. Further efforts were made by Sub-Divisional Officer and another notice was issued on 6th June, 1992. In that notice also there is same report, which also says that the allottee is not residing at allotted land. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in these circumstances with all fairness a notice was given to the person, who was in possession of the land in dispute. Not only this but notice was published in newspaper and thereafter, the impugned order dated 6th July, 1992 was passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer. (7). Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that in pursuance of the directions issued by the Honble Supreme Court in writ petition No. 439/1992, the matter of cancellation of the allotments relating to Pong Dam Oustees was considered by the special court. The special court issued notice to legal representatives of deceased Sumaran Singh and thereafter, passed the impugned order dated 29th May, 1998. It is clear from the order dated 29th May, 1998 that all the legal representatives of deceased Sumaran Singh were parties before special court and this writ petition has been filed by only one of the legal representatives of deceased Sumaran Singh. It is also submitted that there is no illegality in the order dated 29th May, 1998. So far as mutation in the name of legal representatives of Sumaran Singh dated 11th Feb., 1997 is concerned, learned counsel for the respondents has not disputed but submitted that the special court issued notice to the legal representatives of Sumaran Singh because their names were also recorded in the revenue record. According to learned counsel for the respondents, since the petitioner was not in possession of the land in dispute, therefore, he is not entitled for any relief from this Court. (8). I considered the rival submission of both the learned counsel as well as the documents placed on record. It is clear from the record that the land was allotted to Sumaran Singh by order dated 29th June, 1984. One survey was conducted in the year 1991 containing the allegation that the allottee is not residing on the allotted land, and the same stand is taken by the State and relies upon the notices (Annexs. R/1 & R/3). It is clear from the record that the land was allotted to Sumaran Singh by order dated 29th June, 1984. One survey was conducted in the year 1991 containing the allegation that the allottee is not residing on the allotted land, and the same stand is taken by the State and relies upon the notices (Annexs. R/1 & R/3). The report of the year 1991, the foundation and basis for cancellation order itself is void as it is proved to be a report against a dead person. Factually also it is wrong report as it says that allottee was not found in possession in the year 1991, without knowing that allottee expired in the year 1985. Therefore, entire proceedings on the basis of this report becomes void. (9). It is also clear that the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raisinghnagar after registering case No. 167/92 issued notice to Sumaran Singh at the address of khasra number, which was allotted to Sumaran Singh. The Sub-Divisional Officer from the notice dated 6th Jan., 1992 itself got the information that Sumaran Singh is not residing at that place on particular date when the said notice was said to have been sent to that address. Another notice dated 6th June, 1992 was also sent to Sumaran Singh, which also discloses same facts. It is relevant to mention here that the notice bears the signature of one Ram Chandra son of Surja Raj. It is said that Ram Chandra is son of Surja Ram, who was in possession of the land in dispute. It is worthwhile to note here that in the notice dated 6th Jan., 1992, it is mentioned that some one else is in possession of the land. The endorsement, which was signed by Ram Chandra son of Surja Ram also nowhere shows that what relation he had with the original allottee nor he has stated that he or his father is in possession of the land in dispute. The report of second notice dated 6th June, 1992 does not disclose that Surja Ram was in possession of the land in dispute and there is no signature of either Surja Ram, the alleged occupant or Ram Chandra, the alleged son of occupant. The report of second notice dated 6th June, 1992 does not disclose that Surja Ram was in possession of the land in dispute and there is no signature of either Surja Ram, the alleged occupant or Ram Chandra, the alleged son of occupant. Nothing has been said in the order dated 6th July, 1992, how the said service was found sufficient for service of Sumaran Singh particularly in view of the fact that the report on both the notices merely contains a report that Sumaran Singh is residing at a different place. After receipt of this information, it appears that no effects have been made for personal service of the notice upon the allottee at his address at Haryana. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that when allottee was not found in possession, notice was served upon the occupant, but could not point out that how a person in alleged occupation, merely because of his occupation on land at particular time, can represent the original allottee? Therefore, it is clear from all the material placed on record and in view of the stand taken by the respondents, the order dated 6th July, 1992 was passed against a person even without proper service and without making any effort to serve the notice personally. (10). From the Death Certificate (Annex. 3) placed on record of Sumaran Singh, it is clear that Sumaran Singh expired before 6th July, 1992 and in view of the mutation order dated 11th Feb., 1997, it is clear that the legal representatives of Sumaran Singh were found in possession and it is not the case of the State that the legal representatives of the original allottee subsequently took possession of the land. Therefore, there is no reason for not drawing inference of continuity of possession of allottee and thereafter, his successors. It is relevant to mention here that death of Sumaran Singh is not in dispute, therefore, even if any notice was issued and published in the newspapers in the name of Sumaran Singh, cannot be said to be a valid publication of the notice and proper service upon the legal representatives of Sumaran Singh. Therefore, the said publication is of no consequence. The order dated 6th July, 1992 is, therefore, null and void against the legal representatives of Sumaran Singh and cannot bind them. (11). Therefore, the said publication is of no consequence. The order dated 6th July, 1992 is, therefore, null and void against the legal representatives of Sumaran Singh and cannot bind them. (11). So far as the order dated 29th May, 1998 passed by the special court is concerned, it is clear that the special courts were established to examine the cases of cancellation of the allotments in pursuance of the direction issued by the Honble Supreme Court so that in case allotments were cancelled illegally, they may be corrected. It appears from the order dated 29th May, 1998 passed by the special court that personal service was not effected upon the legal representatives of deceased Sumaran Singh, but it appears that a notice was published in the newspaper and thereafter, the special judge of the court passed the impugned order. The special court found that the deceased was not in possession of the land and relied upon the above survey report of the year 1991 and held that there is no illegality in the order dated 6th July, 1992 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer cancelling the allotment order of Sumaran Singh. A bare perusal of the facts mentioned in the order itself shows that the concerned authority had not applied its mind to the facts of the case. The learned judge observed that even it is not clear when the land was allotted to the allottee. It appears that learned judge did not look into the record in which the order dated 6th July, 1992 was passed. Learned special judge did not look into the fact whether a notice was properly served upon the allottee or not. The special court was established to inquire into the validity of the cancellation of the orders, therefore, atleast he should have been the report with respect to the service of the notice, which is a condition precedent for passing of any order. Assuming for the make of argument that the learned special judge after making efforts and found it difficult to serve notice personally upon the legal representatives of deceased, still the fact is that the mutation was opened in the name of legal representatives of Sumaran Singh in the year 1997 before even initiation of the proceedings by the special court. Assuming for the make of argument that the learned special judge after making efforts and found it difficult to serve notice personally upon the legal representatives of deceased, still the fact is that the mutation was opened in the name of legal representatives of Sumaran Singh in the year 1997 before even initiation of the proceedings by the special court. The learned special judge did not inquire that when Sumaran Singh expired and when mutation was already opened in the name of the petitioner and the legal representatives of Sumaran Singh and there is a presumption with respect to the revenue record that they contain correct facts then what was reason for not believing the record containing the entries of name of the legal representatives of Sumaran Singh in possession as the mutation are recorded on the basis of approval of right and possession. (12). Apart from the above, the petitioner has placed on record the copies of the receipts by which the state has accepted the allotment amount from the petitioner in the year 1996, thereafter, what was the reason for the State to claim that the petitioner was not in possession of the land in dispute and how it can justify the observation of the learned District Judge, who recorded the finding that the complete costs of the land was not deposited by the allotee. Honble Supreme Court after finding the difficulties directed to decide the case cancellation orders of those oustees and to find out whether there is any justification for keeping the cancellation orders. Therefore, in these circumstances and in view of the fact that the order dated 26th July, 1992 was passed against a dead person and on the basis of wrong facts, which are not binding upon the legal representatives of Sumaran Singh, therefore, the order of special court upholding the void order cannot be allowed to stand. (13). The petitioner, who is one of the legal representatives of deceased Sumaran Singh, has challenged the orders and he himself in his own capacity has a right to challenge the order and non- impleading of the legal representatives of Sumaran Singh in this writ petition cannot be a ground to deny the benefit in accordance with law, therefore, this writ petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of other legal representatives of Sumaran Singh. (14). (14). In view of the above discussion, the order dated 6th July, 1992 and the order dated 29th May, 1998 recording the finding against the petitioner and the legal representatives of Sumaran Singh are quashed. However, it is made clear that the order of special court is only recommendatory order, therefore, the findings recorded against the petitioner and recommendations on the basis of void order dated 6th July, 1992 are quashed and set aside. (15). The writ petition of the petitioner is, therefore, allowed as said above.