JUDGMENT S.N. Sahai, J. - This is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge of Jhansi recommending that the order of the trial court dated the 10th April 1956 imposing a fine of rupees two hundred on the applicant be quashed and the fine, if paid, be refunded to him. He further recommended that the authorities be directed to comply with the mandatory provisions of law under Sec. 3 (2) of the U. P. Roadside Land Control Act (Act No. X of 1945), hereinafter called the Act before seeking to take action under the Act. 2. The applicant Prem Narain was prosecuted under Sec. 13 of the Act for having constructed a pakka shop covered with a tinshed 6'x10' in the controlled area of the Jhansi-Shivapuri road in the sixth furlong of the second mile on its right hand side, it was alleged on behalf of the prosecution that though a notice was given by the authorities to the applicant, the applicant paid no heed to it. The applicant pleaded not guilty to the charge. He stated that the building was an old one and the P. W. D. Engineer had promised that he would settle up the matter. He also alleged that he has been paying rent to the Municipal Board. The applicant produced evidence in support of the plea that he had taken the site on which the disputed construction stood from the Municipal Board. But it is clear from the prosecution evidence that when the overseer of the Public Works Department measured the land he found it to be in excess of the area which was leased to the applicant by the Municipal Board. The fact that the shop had been reconstructed recently in July 1955 was admitted by Babu Lal, one of the defence witnesses. 3. The trial court, on a consideration of the evidence on the record, came to the conclusion that the applicant had reconstructed his shop in the controlled area in the month of July 1956 without any authority and had thus infringed the provisions of Sec. 5 of the Act and was liable to conviction under Sec. 13 (a) of the Act. 4. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the trial court the applicant went up in revision to the Sessions Judge and raised the contention that the Act did not apply to his case at all as the notification directing the area in which his building stood had not been validly declared a controlled area. He pointed out that the procedure laid down in sub-Sec. (2) of Sec. 3 of the Act had not been properly followed. The Sessions Judge accepted this contention. He was of opinion that, in the absence of any publication in two newspapers printed in a language other than English standing that they proposed to make a declaration contemplated under Sec. 3 (a) of the Act, the declaration was illegal and the applicant could not be legally convicted, as before making that declaration certain procedure had to be adopted which have been given in cls. (1) , (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of Sec. 3 of the Act. Cl. (7) gives the effect of such a declaration. Sec. 3 of the Act says:- Sec. 3: "(1) The State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, declare any land within a distance of four hundred and forty yards from the centre line of any road to be a controlled area for the purposes of this Act. (2) Not less than three months before making a declaration under sub-Sec. (1) the State Government shall cause to be published in the official Gazette and in at least two newspapers printed in a language other than English a notification stating that they propose to make such a declaration and specifying therein the boundaries of the land in respect of which the declaration is proposed to be made, and copies of every such notification or of the substance thereof shall be published by the Collector in such manner as he thinks fit at his office and at such other places as he considers necessary within the said boundaries. (3) Any person interested in any land included within the said boundaries may, at any time before the expiration of thirty days from the last date on which a copy of a such notification is published by the Collector, object to the making of the declaration or to the inclusion of his land or any part of it within the said boundaries. (4) Every objection under sub-section shall be made to the Collector and the Collector shall give to every person so objecting an opportunity of being heard either in person or through a legal practitioner, and shall, after all such objections have been heard and after such further enquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, forward to the State Government the record of the proceedings held by him together with a report setting forth his recommendations on the objections. (5) If before the expiration of the time allowed by sub-Sec. (3) for the filing of objections no objection has been made, the State Government may proceed at once to the making of a declaration under sub-Sec. (1). If any such objections have been made, the State Government shall consider the record and the report referred to in Sub-Sec. (4) and may either. (a) abandon the proposal to make a declaration under sub-Sec. (1), or (b) make such a declaration in respect of either the whole or a part of the land included within the boundaries specified in the notification under Sub-Sec. (2) . (6) For the purposes of sub-Sec. (3) a person shall be deemed to be interested in land if he is a "person interested" as defined in clause (b) of Sec. 3 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purposes of that Act, or, where the land is land occupied by or for the purposes of a place of worship, tomb, cenotaph, graveyard, grave or marghat, if he is a member of the faith to which such building pertains. (7) A declaration made under sub-Sec. (1) shall, unless and until it is with-drawn, be conclusive evidence of the fact that the area to which it relates is a controlled area." The question for consideration in this case is whether the requisite procedure prescribed by sub-Sec. (2) Of Sec. 3 of the Act has been followed. 5. It is an admitted fact that the proposal to make such a declaration was notified in the official Gazette both in Hindi and English. Learned counsel for the State has shown to me a copy of the newspaper "Qaumi Avaz," an Urdu paper published from Lucknow, dated 30th June 1955, in which this notification was also published. The Act requires publication in at least two newspapers. But only one has been produced before me. Learned counsel for the State has shown to me a copy of the newspaper "Qaumi Avaz," an Urdu paper published from Lucknow, dated 30th June 1955, in which this notification was also published. The Act requires publication in at least two newspapers. But only one has been produced before me. It is not suggested on behalf of the State that this notification was published in any other non-English newspaper. Learned counsel has urged that publication of the notification in the Hindi Gazette should be deemed to be a publication in a newspaper of that kind. 6. This contention cannot be accepted. The Hindi edition of the Gazette is really the official Gazette and not the English Edition. This is so in view of the notification issued by the State Government No. U. O. 718|XVII by which it was provided that the Governor was pleased to appoint November 1, 1952 as the date with effect from which Hindi in Davanagri script shall be the language used in respect of (1) Ordinances promulgated under Article 213 of the Constitution of India, and (2) Orders, roles regulations and bye-laws issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh under the Constitution of India or under any law made by Parliament or the Legislature of the State. This notification was issued under the provisions of the U. P. Official Language Act of 1951 which provides that without prejudice to the provisions of Articles 346 and 347 of the Constitution, Hindi in Devanagri script shall, with effect from such date within one year from the commencement of this Act, as the State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, appoint in this behalf, be the language used in respect of the following:- (a) (1) ordinances promulgated under Article 213 of the Constitution; (ii) orders, rules, regulations and bye-laws issued by the State Government under the Constitution of India or under any law made by Parliament or the Legislature of the State; and (b) all or any of the official purposes of the State. 7. The Hindi edition of the Gazette being the official Gazette, the publication of the notification in the Hindi Edition also was really immaterial and had no significance. In addition to the official Gazette i.e. the Hindi edition, the notification should have been published in two non-English newspapers. The publication in the 'Qaumi Awaz' alone could not therefore be sufficient. 7. The Hindi edition of the Gazette being the official Gazette, the publication of the notification in the Hindi Edition also was really immaterial and had no significance. In addition to the official Gazette i.e. the Hindi edition, the notification should have been published in two non-English newspapers. The publication in the 'Qaumi Awaz' alone could not therefore be sufficient. Even the copy of the 'Qaumi Awaz' was not produced by the State in the Court of the Sessions judge. 8. The learned Judge was of opinion that the Hindi copy of the Gazette could be treated as the other non-English newspaper. 9. In view of what has been said above this view was incorrect. For the validity of the declaration under sub-Sec. (1) strict compliance with the requirements of sub-Sec. (2) was necessary and the notification required by this provision must have been published in one other non-English newspaper. 10. Thus it is clear that the mandatory provisions of Sec. 3 (2) of the Act have not been complied with. In these circumstances the declaration made by the State Government regarding the area in question is null and void and consequently the other provisions of the Act could not be applied to this particular area. In my opinion the reference made by the learned Sessions Judge was correct and should be accepted. 11. I accordingly accept the reference and quash the conviction and the sentence passed upon the applicant under Sec. 13 of the U.P. Roadside Land Control Act and direct that the fine, if paid, shall be refunded the applicant.