JUDGMENT R.L. Gulati, J. - This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. 2. There is a Bund known as Ballia-Bairia Bund in the district of Ballia constructed in the year 1958-59 to protect the land and the property of the inhabitants of a number of villages from the effect of flood and erosion of the river Ganga. On the Bund there is a pucca pitch road maintained and supervised by the Public Works Department for public purposes and transport etc. In the year 1966 the authorities finding some danger to the public owing the erosion of the river near village Gai Ghat, started constructing spurs as a measure of protection of the residence of affected villages and of the said Bund as also to check the erosion and divert the current of the river. Later the authorities decided to construct a retire bund as a measure of safety at a distance of about one mile from the place of erosion. For that purpose the State Government issued notification under Sec. 4(1) and Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act in order to acquire the necessary land. This led to litigation. But. the project was later on abandoned and that litigation came to an end. It appears that the respondents have now decided to construct a Sahayak Bund Road instead of Retire Bundh with a view to maintain the link between Ballia-Bairia Road in the event of any danger on account of break in the existing Ballia-Bairia Bund Road. For this purpose some preliminary operations were carried on the land of the petitioners. The petitioners alleged that no notification under the Land Acquisition Act or any other Act was even issued or made known to them for acquisition of the land covered by the said Sahayak Bund Road or for empowering the authorities to dig out any earth from their land. They then filed the present writ petition on 5th July, 1972 complaining that the digging operations carried out by the respondents on their land have wholly unauthorised and illegal. This petition was presented on 5th July, 1972 but was ordered to be listed for admission on 12th July, 1972 and in the mean time Standing Counsel was directed to file a counter-affidavit. The petition was eventually admitted on 13th July, 1972. This petition was presented on 5th July, 1972 but was ordered to be listed for admission on 12th July, 1972 and in the mean time Standing Counsel was directed to file a counter-affidavit. The petition was eventually admitted on 13th July, 1972. In the meantime a notice purporting to be under Section 3/8 of the Rural Development Requisitioning of Land Act, 1948 was served upon petitioner Nos. 1 and 3, on 13th July, 1972 by the Tahsildar. Ballia, the petitioners thereupon moved an amendment application seeking to challenge the aforesaid notice. 3. The petitioners have challenged the impugned notice on the ground that it has been issued malafide in order to cover up their unauthorised operations carried out in their land. There was no notification of any kind when the operations started and the impugned notification was issued only after the respondents became aware of the writ petition filed by the petitioner. It is ,further contended that Section 3/8 of the Rural Development (Requisitioning of Land) Act, 1948 cannot be applied in a case like the present one where the land of the petitioners is being acquired permanently and not for any temporary use as contemplated by the aforesaid Act. There is considerable force in this contention. 4. Under Section 3 of the U. P. Rural Development. (Requisitioning of Land) Act, 1948 a land can be requisitioned for a public purpose. Public purpose has been defined in clause (2) of Section 2 in the following manner : "Public purposes" means for and in connection with any of the following subjects, that say :- (i) making, enlarging or deepening of tanks for purposes of irrigation ; (ii) composing of village refuse or preparation of any other form of manure ; (iii) construction of gals for irrigation ; (iv) plant nurseries ; (v) any other object which the State Government may after publication in the Gazette and after considering any object or suggestion which may be received by notification in the Gazette, declare essential for the development of agriculture or improvement of the life of community in rural area." Admittedly the construction of the Sahayak Bund Road is not covered by any of the clauses (i) to (iv) above, and in clause (v) the State Government has to specify the purpose by a notification in the official Gazette so as to make it a public purpose. The learned Standing Counsel took to search out the notification, if any, issued by the Government under clause (v), aforesaid. The next day when the case was taken up he made a statement that he had not been able to lay his hand upon any notification which would cover the petitioners case. However, after I had dictated the judgment, he produced before me a copy of a Notification dated 12th February, 1963, which reads:- "GOVERNMENT OF- UTTAR PRADESH NIYOJAN (KA) VIBHAG, NO. 15320/ XXXV-A-1374/62 Dated : Lucknow : February, 12, 1963.- NOTIFICATION. In exercise of the powers under clause (v) of Sub-sec. (2) of Section 2 of the U. P. Rural Development (Requisitioning of Land) Act, 1948 (U. P. No. XXVII of 1948) read with Section 21 of the U. P. General Clauses Act, 1904 (U. P. Act No. 1 of 1904) the Governor of U. P. is pleased to make the following amendment to planning Department Notification No. 4685-R/D.C. 601-50, dated December 7, 1961 the same having been previously published with notification No. 1360 I/XXXV-A- 1374/62 dated November 9, 1962. AMENDMENT For the words "laying of village paths and roads" the words "laying of road and village paths'' shall be substituted. By order Sd. Satish Chandra. Sachiv" Thus laying of roads and village paths has been notified by the Government as one of the public purposes for which land can be requisitioned. The project for which the land in the construction of a Sahayak Bund Road. The question arises as to whether a notification of this nature comes within the ambit of clause (v) of Sub-sec. (2) of Section 2 of the U.P. Rural Development (Requisitioning of Land) Act, 1948. This Act authorities requisition of land as opposed to acquisition of Land. There is a marked difference between the two Acts. Under the Land Acquisition Act the land is acquired permanently and the person whose land is acquired ceases to be its owner. Under the present Act the land is requisitioned for a temporary purpose so that the owner is never divested of the ownership of the land requisitioned. After the purpose for which the land is returned to its owner. This is clear from Section 10 of this Act which provides for the release of the land from requisition to its rightful owner. After the purpose for which the land is returned to its owner. This is clear from Section 10 of this Act which provides for the release of the land from requisition to its rightful owner. It is thus clear that the purpose for which the land can be requisitioned must be a temporary purpose and must be of the nature specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of Section 2(2) of the Act. Under clause (v) therefore, the Government can specify any purpose of a similar nature. It cannot specify a purpose for which the land will have to be acquired permanently such a thing is permissible only under the Land Acquisition Act. Now a construction of a road cannot be said to be a temporary purpose. Any land utilised in the construction of a road remains no longer available to its owner after release. Therefore, the construction of a road cannot be one of the public purposes which the Government can specify under clause (v) of Section 2(2) of the Act. Such a Notification would be beyond the ambit of the Act, and, as such, would be ultra-vires. The Notification relied upon by the learned Standing Counsel is of that nature and it has to be held to be being ultra-vires of the Act. 5. The petition is according allowed. The impugned notice issued by the Tahsildar, Ballia (Annexure D to the supplementary affidavit) is quashed. The petitioners are entitled to costs.