B.L.Yadav, J.

1. Present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 27-9-1986 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, respondent no. 1 allowing restoration application filed by Mangali, the respondent no. 5 chak holder no. 217 after holding that the service of notice on son, Jai Singh, respondent no. 6, who has a separate chak no. 103 would not be. taken to be sufficient notice on the father who has a separate chak no. 217.

2. Mr. Satya Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that notice was served on Jai Singh chak holder no. 103, the son of Mangali who has common interest with his father, hence service of notice on son, was service of notice on the father. The report of the process server (Annexure 4, vide page 24 of the petition) evinces that the notice has been correctly served on the son before witnesses. The father was not available hence there was no justification for restoration as in view of second proviso and third proviso added by U. P. Amendment, the respondent no. 5, (Mangali) could have known about the date fixed, just on the basis of the irregularity in summons no exparte order could be set aside. Atten