JUDGMENT Mootham, C.J. - This is an appeal from an order of a learned single Judge dated 12-4-1955, 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 14-9-1953, he directed the issue of two notices u/s 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 u/s 3 but that it sought to effect the requisition by serving notice on the owner and occupier of the land. In the present case it is common ground that the requisitioning authority did not attempt to publish the notice u/s 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 u/s 3 were issued, namely, 14-9-1953, 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 u/s 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. 4. In January, 1954 the Appellant filed the petition out of which this appeal arises. His contention was that the procedure laid down in the Act for the requisition of property not having been observed the purported requisition was no requisition in law, and he sought the issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents, that is the Collector of Muzaffarnagar and the State of Uttar Pradesh not to take possession of the land in question. He further sought the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings taken by the Respondents u/s 3 of the Act. 5. It appears that after the death of the Appellant's father in 1939 mutation of names was effected in the municipal records, the names of the Appellant and his six brothers being brought on these records in place of their deceased father, but that no such mutation was effected in the revenue records. This seems to be explained by the fact that whereas the Appellant and his brothers were assessed to municipal taxes, no demand was made on them for payment of any land revenue. The learned Judge who heard the petition was of opinion that the Collector had, by examining the revenue records, taken all reasonable steps to ascertain who was the owner of the land, and that the Petitioner in the circumstances had no right to challenge the proceedings. 6. With all respects to learned Judge we are unable to agree with this view. 6. With all respects to learned Judge we are unable to agree with this view. In our opinion service of notice u/s 3 of the Act on the owner of the property is an essential part of the process of requisition, and as it is clear that the owners of the property in the present case were not served, we are of the view that no requisition in law was affected. The learned Standing Counsel has drawn our attention to the fact that on 2-10-1953 the Appellant himself filed an application before the Collector from which it is clear that he was aware of the fact that some proceedings were in progress for the taking over of this property by Government, and he contends that, as it must be inferred that the Appellant had knowledge of the proceedings, the fact that no notice was served upon him is not material. We do not think that this argument can be sustained for as we have already said, the service of a notice on the owner is an essential part of the process of requisitioning and that without it there is no valid requisition. 7. We are therefore of opinion that this appeal must be allowed. We accordingly set aside the order of the learned Judge and direct the issue of a writ of mandamus to the first Respondent commanding him not to take possession of the land in dispute in pursuance of the notice served upon Sita Ram dated 14-9-1953. 8. The Appellant is entitled to his costs in both courts, which we fix at Rs. 51 each court.