RAN VIJAI SINGH, J. This writ pe tition has been filed against the order dated 7. 6. 2008 passed by the deputy Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarnagar Camp at Meerut. By the impugned order, the order dated 17. 1. 2008 has been recalled by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on the application dated 12. 2. 2008 moved by the respondent Nos. 4 and 6. 2. It appears, against the order of al lotment of chak by the Consolidation Officer, an appeal was filed before the Settlement Officer Consolidation in which the petitioner was not made party and the appeal was al lowed on 10. 11. 2006. Aggrieved by this or der, the petitioner has moved a recall appli cation and the order dated 10. 11. 2006 was recalled holding that by mistake the peti tioners chak has been disturbed. 3. Against this order, the respon dents have filed Revision. The Revision was dismissed after hearing both the par ties on 17. 1. 2008. For recall of the order dated 17. 1. 2008, the respondents have filed an application on 12. 2. 2008 in which notice was issued to the petitioner fixing 3. 5. 2008 and thereafter the order was recalled on 7. 6. 2008. 4. Shri Nitin Sharma, learned Coun sel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 17. 1. 2008 has been recalled without hearing him as no notice was served on his client. 5. Refuting the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri Sheo Ram Singh, learned Counsel for the re spondent Nos. 4 and 6 has submitted that the notice was pasted which is apparent from the perusal of the report of the Proc ess Server dated 1. 5. 2008. 6. I have heard Shri Nitish Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel, learned Counsel for Gaon Sabha and Shri Sheo Ram Singh and Shri Sanjai Kumar Yadav, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 4 and 6. With the consent of Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for fi nal disposal. 7. From the perusal of the report of the Process Server, it transpires that the Process Server has reported that he has gone in the village with the notice and pasted it before the witnesses named above, but names of the witnesses, their parentage and their addresses have not been mentioned. 7. From the perusal of the report of the Process Server, it transpires that the Process Server has reported that he has gone in the village with the notice and pasted it before the witnesses named above, but names of the witnesses, their parentage and their addresses have not been mentioned. It is also not mentioned that where the notice was pasted. 8. For deciding the case on merit there has to be specific mention in the back of that notice where it was pasted. The names and parentage of the witnesses alongwith their addresses are also required to be mentioned in whose presence notice was pasted. The reason for pasting on a particular place is also required to be re corded. The efforts of Process Server with regard to the service of notice must reflect from the report. In absence of any one of the above conditions, it cannot be assumed that the notice was properly served. Here in this case above conditions we not satis fied. 9. In view of that the service of no tice appears to be indefinite and vague, therefore no order could be passed on merit on this basis. 10. In view of that the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 7. 6. 2008 is hereby quashed. The Deputy Director of Consolidation is at liberty to pass fresh order in accordance with law after hearing all concerned expeditiously in accordance with law. Petition Allowed. .