Mootham, C.J. - (1.) This is an appeal from an order of a learned single Judge dated the 12th April, 1955, dismissing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) The facts are these. The Collector desired to requisition for the rehabilitation of refugees certain land, with the buildings thereon, in the city of Muzaffarnagar; and on the 14th September, 1953, he directed the issue of two notices under Section 3 of the United Provinces Land Acquisition (Rehabilitation of Refugees) Act, 1948. One of these notices was addressed to Pearey Lal and was, it seems, returned unserved. The other notice was addressed to Sita Ram who was a tenant in occupation of the land in question. Now Section 3 of the U.P. Land Acquisition (Rehabilitation of Refugees) Act, so far as is relevant, provides that if the Provincial Government or such other authority as the Provincial Government may appoint in that behalf considers it necessary or expedient to requisition property for the erection of houses and shops for the rehabilitation or refugees, the Provincial Government or the appointed authority, "may by order requisition any land by serving on the owner and occupier thereof, and, when the owner or the occupier is not readily traceable or the ownership or the right to occupation of the land is in dispute, or owing to the number of persons entitled as owner or occupier it is not reasonably convenient to serve everyone of them separately, by publishing in such manner as may be specified in that behalf, a notice stating that the Provincial Government or the appointing authority, as the case may be, has decided to requisition it in pursuance of this section......"
(3.) We think it is clear from this section that the requisition of land under the Act is to be effected in one of two ways, either by the service on the owner and occupier of the land of a notice stating that the Government or the appointed authority has decided to requisition it, or (in the circumstances mentioned in the section) by publishing such notice in the specified manner. In the present case it is common ground that the requisitioning authority did not attempt to publish the notice under Section 3 but that it sought to effect the requisition by serving notice on the owner and occupier of the land. It is not now in the dispute that on the date upon which the notices under Section 3 were issued, namely, the 14th September, 1953, the owners of the land sought to be acquired were the appellant and his six brothers, they being the sons of one Behari Lal who died in November, 1939. Sita Ram was the tenant of the seven brothers. Although a notice under Section 3 was duly served on Sita Ram, no notice at all was served on the appellant or any of his brothers. A notice presumably intended for Behari Lal but in the name of Pearey Lal was issued, but for obvious reasons could not be served.;