Honble ARVIND, M.—This is an appeal u/S. 76 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 against the judgment dated 30.12.2000 by learned Settlement Officer-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota Camp Baran in Appeal No. 491/2000. 2. The main issue in this matter is as per the order sheet which is being reproduced below: ^^fnukad 9-11-2000% i=koyh ntZ jftLVj dh tkosA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dh i=koyh ryc dh tkosA jsLiks.Ms.V dh lEeu t;sZ jftLVªh ,-Mh- rkehy djk;s tkus gsrq odhy vihyk.V dks nLrh nh tkosA i=koyh fnukad 22-11-2000 dks dSEi ckjka esa isk gksA** ^^fnukad 6-12-2000% odhy vihyk.V mi-A i=koyh v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ÁkIr gks pqdh gSA jft- ,Mh okil vkbZ fd ÁkIr dys- dksVk fcuk irk crk;s pyk x;k gSA vr% nSfud v[kckj ^^fnkk /ot** esa ÁdkkkukFkZ lEeu tkjh fd;s x;sA i=koyh fnukad 20-12-2000 dks isk gksA iqu% LVs c<+k;k x;kA** (a) As per the order sheet dated 9.11.2000 and 6.12.2000, learned Settlement Officer-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority ordered to issue summons through registered AD and also ordered that registered AD may be given DASTI. Registered AD can never be given DASTI it should be sent through Postal Department by the Court. It makes the matter suspicious as to whether the subsequent report given by the respondent that the recipient of the registered notices has gone to Kota without announcing or informing his address to the neighbourhood. This whole matter attracts suspicion and cannot be relied upon. The procedure has been violated to the extent that the whole process has gained futility. (b) Registered notices can never be given DASTI to the other party. This procedure is unwarranted and irregular. (c) As per the order sheet dated 6.12.2000 it has been ordered that notices be published in a newspaper "fnkk/ot". It has been argued that this newspaper is not a well known newspaper and it is also a clever effort. There is no ground why this less known newspaper was chosen for the publication of the notices. (d) On the call by this Court nobody is present on behalf of respondent No. 1. On behalf of the respondent No. 2 learned Dy. Govt. Advocate is present. As such this case is full of confusion which indicates violation of natural justice. There is no ground why this less known newspaper was chosen for the publication of the notices. (d) On the call by this Court nobody is present on behalf of respondent No. 1. On behalf of the respondent No. 2 learned Dy. Govt. Advocate is present. As such this case is full of confusion which indicates violation of natural justice. (e) Here as per the cause list name of advocate for respondent No. 1 has been mentioned as Jaswant Singh, whereas learned advocate Shri Jaswant Singh came to the Court and reported that he is not the advocate in this case and in the file of the Board his name has wrongly been mentioned. Now to sort out this problem, it is necessary that learned Settlement Officer-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota issues fresh notices to both the parties and then ensure proper service of summons and only then decide the matter after hearing both the parties. 3. As such the order of learned Settlement Officer-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority dated 30.12.2000 which was passed ex-parte is set aside and he is directed to hear both the parties again and decide the mater on merits as per law. Notices to the parties will be issued by the learned Settlement Officer-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota afresh. Pronounced.