JUDGMENT H.C.P. Tripathi, J. - This petition raises a question about the interpretation of Sections 358 and 554 of the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959. The petitioner owns 1/48 share in building No. D 58/16 situate in a portion of plot No. 77 within the limits of Nagar Mahapalika, Varanasi. His name finds place on the list of assessment of Mahapalika as one of the owners of the building. A scheme known as Chakla Bag Development Scheme was framed under the Low Income Group Housing Scheme by the Mahapalika and after undergoing the necessary formalities and obtaining the approval from the Town and Village Planner, the aforesaid building and the land together with other land and buildings were to be acquired in pursuance of that scheme. The Scheme was published as contemplated by Section 357 of the Act in the U.P. Gazette of 14.10.61 notifying that the aforesaid building and land were to be acquired for the implementation of the scheme. Notice of the proposed acquisition was also served on the owners of the building and land to be acquired, as contemplated under Section 358 of the Act and after the disposal of their objections the scheme was finally sanctioned by the Mahapalika. The papers were handed over to the Land Acquisition Officer, Varansai for the acquisition of the land and the house in question. 2. The petitioner contends that though his name is in the assessment list of the Mahapalika in respect of the aforesaid building, no notice was given as required under Section 358 of the Act and, therefore, all the proceedings for the acquisition of the land stand vitiated. 3. In the counter-affidavit it has been asserted that the notice as required by Section 357(2) of the Act was published. Individual notices of the proposed acquisition were also sent to every person as recorded in the Mahapalika Assessment List. So far as the house No. D 58/16 is concerned, the petitioner is one of the several co-owners of the house and the procedure prescribed by Section 554 (3)(a) of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam was followed as regards the mode of service. "The notice under Section 358 of the Act in the name of Sri Manmohan Das Shah and others was served on 2.12.1961, on one of the co-owners. Objections were filed by Sri Manmohan Das Shah on 13.2.1962.... "The notice under Section 358 of the Act in the name of Sri Manmohan Das Shah and others was served on 2.12.1961, on one of the co-owners. Objections were filed by Sri Manmohan Das Shah on 13.2.1962.... and the objection was rejected by the Development Committee on 17.8.62 after hearing the objectors. "It has been further asserted that "it is denied that the petitioner remained in complete ignorance of the proceedings. Some of the co-owners viz., Sarvasri Manmohan Das Shah, Jai Krishna Das Shah and Sri Jiwan Das Shah in fact filed objections." 4. It is, therefore, obvious that notices under Section 358 of the Act were actually served on some of the other co-owners of the building but it had not been individually served on the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the provisions of the Act are mandatory and as no notice was served on the petitioner as provided under the section, the Mahapalika cannot take advantage of the notice having been served on his co-owners. I do not find any force in this contention. The relevant portion of Section 358 reads: "358. (1) During the thirty days next following the first day on which any notice is published under Section 357 in respect of any improvement scheme, the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari shall serve a notice on-(a) every person whose name appears in the Mahapalika assessment list as being primarily liable to pay any tax assessed upon the annual value of any building or land which it is proposed to acquire in executing the scheme, and (2) Such notice shall- (a) a state that the Mahapalika proposes to acquire such land for the purposes of carrying out an improvement scheme, and (b) require such person, if he dissents from such acquisition, to state his reasons in writing within a period of sixty days from the service of the notice." Sub-Section (1) and (3) of Section 554 of the Act read "554. (1) Notices, bills, schedules, summonses and other such documents required by this Act or by any rule, regulation or by law to be served upon or issued or presented or given to any person, shall be served, issued, presented or given by Mahapalika officers or servants or by other person authorised by the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari in this behalf. (1) Notices, bills, schedules, summonses and other such documents required by this Act or by any rule, regulation or by law to be served upon or issued or presented or given to any person, shall be served, issued, presented or given by Mahapalika officers or servants or by other person authorised by the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari in this behalf. * * * (3) When any notice, bill, schedule, summons or other such document is required by this Act, or by any rule, regulation or bye-law, to be served upon or issued or presented to the owner or occupier of any building or land, it shall not be necessary to name the owner or occupier therein, and the service, issue or presentation thereof shall be effected, not in accordance with the provisions of the last preceding sub-section, but as follows, namely- (a) by giving or tendering the said notice, bill, schedule, summons or other document to the owner or occupier, or if there be more than one owner or occupier, to any one of the owners or occupiers of such building or land;....." 6. Section 554 finds place in the Act after Section 358. It must, therefore, be presumed that when the legislature provided under sub-Section (3) of Section 554 that when there be more than one owner or occupier of a building or land a notice, summons or other document required by the Act could be given to any one of the owners or occupiers of such building or land, it was conscious of the provisions which it had made under Section 358 of the Act to the effect that notice was to be served in that regard on every person whose name appeared in the Mahapalika Assessment List. In my opinion, therefore, it must be held that the legislature intended both the sections to be read together and harmoniously construed and deliberately provided that a notice envisaged under Section 358 could be served in the manner provided under Section 554 of the Act. In this light it is obvious that as the notice has been served on some of the co-owners of the building, it must be held that the provisions of the Act in that regard have been duly complied. 7. From the counter-affidavit it appears that the notices were also published in the newspaper "Aj" which has a wide circulation in the city of Varanasi. 7. From the counter-affidavit it appears that the notices were also published in the newspaper "Aj" which has a wide circulation in the city of Varanasi. Three of the co-owners of the petitioner were served with the notice and had filed objections and were heard by the Development Committee and their objections were rejected on 17.8.1968. This writ petition was filed on 24.5.1963. It will not be reasonable to hold, in these circumstances, that the petitioner was not aware of the proceedings of the acquisition of the building and the land. 8. There is no force in this petition and it is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, however, there will be no order as to costs.