H.C.P. Tripathi, J.
1. Parties filed an objection under Section 9 (1) of the Act. It was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer as barred by time. On appeal, the Settlement Officer agreed with the finding of the Consolidation Officer. Petitioners' revision against the order of the Settlement Officer was also dismissed by the Deputy Director on 20-2-1968; hence this petition. The case is governed by the Act as it stood in 1958. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that as notice envisaged under Section 9 of the Act had not been admittedly served on the petitioners, there was no question of limitation arising in the case and the Consolidation Authorities have erred in rejecting his objection on the ground of limitation. Learned counsel contends that Section 9, as it stood in 1958, provided that notice was to be sent 'to persons interested calling upon them to file objections, if any, within fifteen days from the date of receipt of notice. ............' and as no notice was served on the petitioners who were persons interested in the matter time will not run against them. I, however, find no force in this contention for more than one reason. At the time of the Partal for the revision of the field book and the current annual register, as provided under Section 8 of the Act, petitioners did not appear to have raised any dispute regarding the entries in the basic year. It was not possible, therefore, for the Consolidation Authorities to find out that they were persons interested within the meaning of Section 9 of the Act. That being so, there is no wonder if notice was not issued to them and the petitioners, therefore, cannot take advantage of that fact.
2. The intention of the legislature in providing under Section 9 of the issue of a notice to persons interested was to give them information of the proceedings so that they may come and take steps to safeguard their interests within a reasonable time. Therefore, if the person interested had the knowledge of the proceedings, the absence of issue of notice will not arrest the march of time against him. Rati Bhan Singh had admitted before the Consolidation Officer that he had received CH Extracts regarding his other fields and that he had come to know after ten or twenty days of the issue of those extracts that the plot in dispute was not entered in his name. It has also come in evidence that Rati Bhan Singh had filed an objection on 11-9-1961 in respect of the same village regarding other plots. These facts indicate that the petitioners, by the middle of June, 1961, were in possession of the knowledge that the plot in dispute had not been entered in revenue records in their names. That being so, there was no point in their waiting till 30th June, 1962, for coming forward to file their objection. It appears that they had filed the objection for its sake only and not because it contained any merit. In this view of the matter, I find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings arrived at by the Consolidation Authorities.
3. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.