IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.828 of 2007 Md.Abdul Quddus @ Md.Quddus Versus State Of Bihar & Ors ---------------------------------- 4 3-11-2011 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, opposite party-State of Bihar and the proforma opposite party 2nd set. This revision application has been filed against the appellate court order affirming the order passed in L.A.Misc.Case No. 7 of 2003 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner made under Order 9 Rule 4 C.P.C. for restoration of Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 26 of 1981 which had been registered under section 18 of the L.A.Act. The contention of the petitioner is that as per the requirement of the provision of section 45(3) of the L.A.Act notice was not served upon him personally or to any adult member of the family and as such there was no valid service on him in the Land Acquisition Reference Case. It has been further urged that both the courts below have wrongly held that there was personal service of notice upon the petitioner as well as the proforma opposite party 2nd set in this revision application. The perusal of the impugned order shows that both the courts below have recorded the concurrent finding of fact that notices have been served upon the petitioner as well as the proforma opposite party 2nd set. From the pleadings of the petitioner, which appears in the impugned orders, it does not reflect that at any stage the petitioner challenged the order dated 2 11-10-1983 by which the fact of valid service of notices had been recorded. Nothing could be brought to the notice of this Court that the findings recorded by the courts below are perverse and as such it is difficult to accede to the request of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner to peruse the copy of the order dated 11-10-1983. The impugned order does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction. This revision application is, accordingly, dismissed. roy ( V. Nath, J.)