JUDGMENT D.D. Seth, J. - The facts of this case are that the Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Pauri Garhwal, filed a complaint against the applicant before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pauri, Stating therein that the applicant had constructed a building "up to lintel level on mile No. 1, furlong No. 6 of the Fauri-Deoprayag road-in the controlled area without the permission of the Collector as required under Section 5 of the U. P. Roadside Land Control Act". A notice was issued to the applicant who contested the case on the ground that the notification relied upon by the prosecution alleged to have been issued under Section 3 of the U. P. Roadside Land Control Act was invalid because the proposed declaration of the controlled area had not been published in two non-English newspapers as required by sub-sec. (2) of Section 3 of that Act. 2. On behalf of the prosecution two witnesses were examined, namely R. M. Gulati, Assistant Engineer P.W.D. as P.W. 1 and P.D. Naithani, Overseer, as P.W. 2. 3. After going through the evidence on record the learned Magistrate believed the prosecution and convicted the applicant under Section 13 of the U.P. Roadside Land Control Act, 1945 (U. P. Act No. X of 1945) and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 150/-, or in default ordered him to undergo one month's simple imprisonment. 4. Against the judgment of the learned Magistrate, the applicant preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Uttarkhand West, by his judgment dated 30th October, 1968, and aggrieved by the order passed by the courts below the applicant has come up in revision to this Court. 5. I have heard Sri L.P. Naithani, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri D. S. Tewari the learned brief holder for the State. It been contended before me by Sri L. P. Naithani that the notification in dispute which was said to have been issued under sub-sec. (1) of Section 3 of the U. P. Roadside Land Control Act, 1945 was invalid, inasmuch as it was not published in two non-English newspapers as required by sub-sec. (2) of Section 3 of that Act; and hence, Sri Naithani contended that the conviction of the applicant was not in accordance with law has to be set aside. 6. (1) of Section 3 of the U. P. Roadside Land Control Act, 1945 was invalid, inasmuch as it was not published in two non-English newspapers as required by sub-sec. (2) of Section 3 of that Act; and hence, Sri Naithani contended that the conviction of the applicant was not in accordance with law has to be set aside. 6. This revision has been listed without the record on an application made by Sri Naithani' because, according to the learned counsel the 'point raised in this revision was a pure question of law, and hence, the record was not required. I have carefully gone through the judgment of the courts below and it does seem that there was no compliance with sub-sec. (2) of Section 3 of the Roadside Land Control Act. Section 3 of the Act deals with a declaration of controlled area. and sub-sec. (2) which is relevant, runs as follows : "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." 7. It was contended on behalf of the State that in view of Section 4 of the U. P. Roadside Land Control (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 1965, the notification in dispute was valid and the applicant has, therefore, been rightly convicted for an offence under Section 13 of the U. P. Roadside Land Control Act, 1945, Section 4 of the U. P. Roadside Land Control (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 1945 validates a notification etc. and reads as follows: "Every notification issued, every order or declaration made, every proceeding or other action taken under the principal Act before the Commencement of this Act, shall be deemed to have been issued, made or taken under the said Act as amended by this Act and notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court to the contrary, sail be deemed to be, and always to have been, valied." 8. There is nothing in Section 4 of the U. P. Roadside Land Control (Sanshodhan) Adhainiyam, 1965 to show that the mandatory requirement of sub-sec. (2) of Section 3 of the Principal Act was not necessary. Section 4 of the Sanshodhan Adhiniyam only makes valid the notifications issued and or the principal Act, but before a notification can be said to be valid under the principal Act, the mandatory provision of sub-sec. (2) of Section 3 of the principal Act had to be valid. In the instant case, there is nothing to show that the said declaration of the proposed declared area was published in two non-English newspapers as required by sub-sec. (2) of Section 3 of the principal Act, and hence, it must be held that the mandatory provisions of sub-sec. (2) of Section 3 of the Principal Act had not been complied with and it follows, therefore, that the conviction of the applicant under Section 13 of the U. P. Roadside Land Control Act, 1945 and the sentence awarded to him was not in accordance with law. 9. For the reasons mentioned above and after hearing the larned counsel for the parties I allow this appeal, set aside the judgments of the Courts below and also set aside the conviction and the sentence of the applicant under section 13 of the U. P. Roadside Land Control Act. The time if paid by the applicant shall be refunded to him.