BHOPAL Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 20th August, 1958, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bareilly, passed an order, requisitioning 17.2 acres of land in village Karora for re habilitation of persons affected by flood, under Section 3 of the U. P. Acquisition of Property (Flood Relief) Temporary Powers Act, 1948. The appellants were the owners of the land. They subsequently made a re presentation against the requisition. That having evoked no response, they instituted a writ petition in this Court The requisi tion order was challenged on a variety of grounds. The learned Single Judge accepted file plea raised by the appellants that no notice, as required by Section 3 of the Act, had been issued or served on the appellants. Nonetheless, he held that non-service of the notice will not invalidate the requisition as the appellants had knowledge of the requi sition proceedings. The various other points raised in support of the writ petition were also repelled The writ petition was dismis sed.

(2.) IN our opinion, the appeal is en titled to succeed and the order cannot be sustained. Section 3, which authorises the requisition of property, provides:-

(3.) THE finding of the learned Single Judge that no notice, as required by Sec tion 3, was either issued or served upon the owners, has not been challenged before us. On that finding, the order of requisition was clearly ineffective and cannot be sustained. Since the appeal is liable to succeed on this point, it is unnecessary to go into the merits of the various other pleas raised by the ap pellants.