R.M. Sahai, J. - (1.) THESE two petitions, one filed by the owner and the other riled by State arise out of proceedings Under U.P. Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976. It is not necessary to go into the merits of the case as the first question that arises for consideration is if the notice was served on Petitioner in accordance with law. It is claimed by Petitioner that as no notice was served on him as contemplated in Rule 5 of the Rules he was prevented from filing evidence which could have established that land in dispute could not be declared as vacant land as in fact it was agricultural land. From appellate order it is clear that the first notice sent was served on Petitioner's son The prescribed authority did not consider this service as sufficient as fresh notices were sent which were served on Petitioner by affixation. The appellate authority held that service on Petitioner was not in accordance with law as it was not in compliance to Rule 5. But as service on his son was sufficient he did not consider it proper to interfere and remand the case. In taking this view appellate authority obviously committed error of law. Rule 5 itself lays down procedure for service of notice on the owner. Sub -rule (2) of Rule 5 reads as " (2) (a) The direct statement be served, together with the notice referred to in Sub -section (3) of Section 8, onicrrea (i) the holder of the vacant lands, and (ii) all other persons, so far as may be known, who have or are likely to have, any claim to, or interest in the ownership, or possession, or both, of the vacant lands, by sending the same by registered post addressed to the person concerned (I) in the case of the holder of the vacant lands to his address as given in the statement filed in pursuance of Sub -section (i) of Section 6 and (ii) in the case of other persons at their last known addresses. (b) where the draft statement and the notice are retuned by the addressee, the same shall be deemed to have been bully served on such person. (c) Where the efforts to serve the draft statement and the notice, on the holder of the vacant lands, or, as the Case may be, any other person referred to in Clause (a), in the manner specified in that Clause is not successful for reasons other than the reason referred to in Clause (b), the draft statement and notice shall be served by affixing copies of the same in a conspicuous place in the office of the competent authority and also upon some Conspicuous part of the house (if any) in which the holder of the vacant lands or as the case may be, the other person if known to have last resided or carried on business or personally worked for gain. Admittedly notice was not served on holder of the vacant land Son or abut son is not one of persons mentioned in any of the Sub -rule on whom service could be made which could be held to be sufficient for the purposes of the rules, As regards service on Petitioner appellate authority held that it was not in accordance with law In others words, none of the notices were served as contemplated in the Rule Order, therefore, passed by the two authorities cannot be maintained.
(2.) IN the result petition filed by Petitioner owner succeeds and is allowed Orders passed by the appellate and prescribed authorities are quashed. The prescribed authority is directed to proceed afresh in accordance with law after affording opportunity to Petitioner to lead evidence. Writ petition filed by the state fails and is dismissed parties shall bear their own costs;