JUDGMENT M.C. Desai, C.J. - These appeals arise from a judgment of Bhargava, J. quashing the orders passed by appellant Nos. 1 and 2 under Sec. 13 of the U.P. Roadside Land Control Act, 1945 (Act no. X of 1945, to be referred to as the U.P. Act) calling upon the respondents to these appeals to restore to their original state the land in respect of which they were said to have committed contravention of the provisions of Sec. 12(1) and quashing convictions of some of the respondents under Sec. 13(1) of the Act and proceedings in the prosecution of other respondents under the same provision. 2. On February 26, 1955 the State Government issued a notification under Sec. 3(1) of the Act declaring land within a distance of 220 feet on either side of the Lucknow-Jhansi Road passing through several villages, as controlled area for the purposes of the Act. The consequence of the declaration was that no person could erect or re-erect any building, or make or extend any excavation, or lay out any means of access to a road in the controlled area except with the previous permission of the Collector in writing (vide Sec. 5) and that no land within the controlled area could be used for the purposes of a kiln or a brick field except under, and in accordance with, the conditions of a license to be granted by the Collector (vide Sec. 12). Any person who erects or re-erects any building or makes or extends any excavation or lays out any means of access to a road in contravention of the provisions of Sec. 5 or uses any land in contravention of Sec. 12 is liable to be prosecuted under Sec. 13(1) and punished with a fine. Further, the Collector is empowered by Sec. 13(2) to order any person who has committed a breach of the provisions of Sec. 12(1) to restore to its original state the land in respect of which a contravention has been made. Under sub-Sec. (7) of Sec. 3 a declaration made under sub-Sec. (1) is to be conclusive evidence of the fact that the area to which it relates is a controlled area, unless and until it is withdrawn. Under sub-Sec. (7) of Sec. 3 a declaration made under sub-Sec. (1) is to be conclusive evidence of the fact that the area to which it relates is a controlled area, unless and until it is withdrawn. "Road" was defined in Sec. 2(6) as it stood on the date of the notification and of the judgment under appeal, to mean "a metalled road maintained by the State Government or by a local authority or a route demarcated by the State Government or a local authority with a view to constructing along it a metalled road." Subsequently, Parliament passed the National Highways Act (No. XLVIII of 1956) which came into effect on 15-4-1957, declaring certain highways specified in the schedule to be National Highways. The highway connecting Lucknow with Jhansi via Kanpur is one of the National Highways mentioned in the schedule. Under Sec. 4 of the Act all National Highways "shall vest in the Union" and include "all lands appurtenant thereto, whether demarcated or not." Sec. 5 lays down that it shall be the responsibility of the Central Government to develop and maintain in proper repair all national highways" and that the Central Government may, by notification in the gazette, direct that any function in relation to the development or maintenance of any national highway shall" also be exercisable by the State Government." The U.P. Act was amended by the State Legislature by the U.P. Roadside Land Control (Amendment) Act (No. VI of 1965) and the definition of "road" was altered. This amendment was given retrospective effect from 15-4-1957. The new definition of "road" is "a metalled road maintained by the State Government, the Government of India and includes a national highway." The effect of this amendment is that with effect from 15-4-1957 a national highway also is within the meaning of "road" and that a notification under Sec. 3 (1) can be issued in respect of land lying within 440 yards from its centre line. 3. The facts in these special appeals are that the respondents started constructions on the land declared by the State Government as controlled area without the permission of the Collector and they were prosecuted for the offence of Sec. 13(1). Orders under Sec. 13(2) were also issued against, some of the respondents. 3. The facts in these special appeals are that the respondents started constructions on the land declared by the State Government as controlled area without the permission of the Collector and they were prosecuted for the offence of Sec. 13(1). Orders under Sec. 13(2) were also issued against, some of the respondents. Some of the respondents were convicted and prosecutions against others were pending in November, 1962 when the petitions giving rise to these appeals were filed by the respondents. The respondents sought reliefs of prohibition in respect of the prosecutions under Sec. 13(1) pending against some of them and proceedings pending against them under sub-Sec. (2) and for certiorari for the quashing of pending prosecutions and proceedings. 4. The writ petitions were allowed by our learned brother on the ground that on the passing of the National Highways Act the Lucknow-Jhansi road ceased to be "road" within the meaning of Sec. 2(6) of the U.P. Act (as it stood before its amendment in 1965). As he held that the Lucknow-Jhansi road ceased to be a road he held that the notification became invalid and quashed the convictions, prosecutions and proceedings recorded or pending against the respondents. He did not go into other matters raised by the respondents in their petitions. It was after he had allowed the petitions that the U.P. Act was amended. 5. Sri Trivedi contended that the notification was valid on the date of its issue and remained valid despite the passing of the National Highways Act. The Lucknow-Jhansi road was being maintained by the State Government before it became a national highway and was a "road" as defined in the U.P. Act. The National Highways Act was not in force on the date of the issue of the notification and the road did not vest in the Union Government. Once the notification was validly issued, the land on both sides of the road mentioned in the notification became controlled area. The notification did not cease to be valid merely because subsequently the road became a national highway. Once the notification was validly issued, the land on both sides of the road mentioned in the notification became controlled area. The notification did not cease to be valid merely because subsequently the road became a national highway. Under the National Highways Act it only vested in the Union Government; even if it be said that this meant that it was to be developed and maintained by the Union Government and that the responsibility of the State Government to develop and maintain it ceased, it does not follow that the notification which was valid at the time of its issue became invalid. The National Highways Act was not given retrospective effect and the Lucknow-Jhansi road became a national highway only with effect from 15-4-1957 and not with effect from any earlier date. The National Highways Act does not contain any provision laying down that any notification issued by the State Government under Sec. 3(1) of the U.P. Act would become null and void with effect from 15-4-1957, if the road became a national highway. Sub-Sec. (7) of Sec. 3 made it clear that the notification was to remain in force until it was revoked; it was not revoked by the State Government and no provision laid down that it was to be deemed to be revoked on the passing of the National Highways Act. Once the land on the sides of the road was declared to be controlled area, it remained controlled area even though the road became a national highway and ceased to be "road". Therefore, our learned brother was not correct in saying that on the passing of the National Highways Act the controlled area ceased to be controlled area. It could cease to be controlled area only if the notification was withdrawn and in no other manner. 6. In any case, after the amendment of the definition by the U.P. Amendment Act of 1965 the position is left without any doubt. With effect from 15-4-1957 even a national highway is a "road" within the meaning of the U.P. Act. Therefore, a notification under Sec. 3(1) can be issued in respect of a national highway, and a notification validly issued in respect of a road prior to 15-4-1957 remains valid, in spite of the enforcement of the National Highways Act. 7. With effect from 15-4-1957 even a national highway is a "road" within the meaning of the U.P. Act. Therefore, a notification under Sec. 3(1) can be issued in respect of a national highway, and a notification validly issued in respect of a road prior to 15-4-1957 remains valid, in spite of the enforcement of the National Highways Act. 7. The respondents have not been heard in respect of other pleas either by our learned brother or by us. It will be necessary to remand the petitions for further hearing. We therefore, allow this appeal, hold that the area declared to be controlled area by the State Government did not cease to be controlled area merely because of the passing of the National Highways Act and direct the petition to be listed before an Hon'ble Judge for further hearing. Costs of this special appeal shall be costs in the writ petition. Appeal allowed.