contradictions as regards the service of notice. According to the defendants, in the written statement inasmuch as the plaintiff had refused to receive the same, the same had been affixed in his residence. DW1 would tender evidence that the notice had been given to the plaintiff's mother and as she had refused to receive the same, the notice had come to be affixed in the survey stone available in the suit lands and when it is noted that on the date of Ex.B1 notice, the plaintiff's mother is not alive and such being the position, it is found that no proper explanation has been offered by the defendants as regards the above said material contradictions. That apart, when DW1 has no personal knowledge with reference to the notice marked as Ex.B1 and when the plaintiff has challenged the same tooth and nail and when the person to whom the notice has to be sent was not alive on that date and there are legal representatives to the assignment holder other than the plaintiff, it does not stand to reason as to why no endeavour has been made to send the notice to the legal representatives so as to invite their objections with reference to the resumption proceedings etc., In such view of the matter, when none pertaining to Ex.B1 has been examined by the defendants, merely from the endorsement found therein, we cannot safely hold that Ex.B1 notice had been served on the plaintiff and that he had refused to receive the same and therefore, the same had come to be affixed in his residence and when with reference to the same, as seen there are material contradictions, it is found that as rightly putforth by the plaintiff and determined by the first appellate Court, the defendants have failed to establish that due notice had been served on the plaintiff or any other legal representative of the assignment holder prior to the initiation of the resumption proceedings. The further case of the defendants that the suit lands had been taken by the Government cannot also be accepted, when it is found that the Government has not placed any material worth acceptance pertaining to the same. In this connection, the document marked as Ex.B2 would not serve the purpose. If really, the suit lands had been taken really by the Government, the said facts would have been reflected in the concerned register maintained by the Government. However, the said register has not been placed for the consideration of the Courts. Further, according to DW1, the Tahsildar took possession of the properties by way of Mahazar marked as Ex.B2. The said Tahsildar had not been examined and no one associated with the Mahazar has been examined. The attestation of the neighbouring land owners or occupiers had not been obtained in the Mahazar marked as Ex.B2. Further, no proof has been placed by the Government pursuant to Ex.B2 Mahazar, as to how the suit lands had been dealt with by the Government in their revenue records by placing the said records for the consideration of the Courts. In such view of the matter, as rightly determined by the first appellate Court, merely on the production of mahazar, without any proof to lend authenticity to the same and when DW1 is not personally aware of the same and the records pertaining to the same had not been produced before the Court, it is seen https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
