Judgment by the Court In this application the petitioner prays for quashing of notification nos. 8598 Patna dated 15. 10. 1975 and Monghyr dated 23.10.1975 by virtue where of the lands mentioned therein have been declard to be surplus lands of the petitioner under the provision of Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). The petitioner further prays for quashing of the proceedings under the Land Ceiling Act, being Land Ceiling Case No.3 of 1974/75. 2. The case of the petitioner is that on 15. 9. 1975 he received a draft statement under Section 10 (I) of the Act, and filed objection thereto under Section 10 (3) of the Act, on 4. 10. 1975. But, it now appears that even previous to filing of the objection, certain lands of petitioner and members of his family had been wrongly declared as surplus. In the writ application various grounds have been urged in support of the contention that the notification of the lands as surplus lands is illegal. It is not necessary in this writ application to adjudicate those contentions and examine the question whether and, if so, to what extent the petitioner and members of his family hold surplus lands. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed in this case in which it is stated that the notice that was sent to the petitioner on 15. 9. 1975 was under Section 11of the Act. The notice under Section 10 (1) of the Act, had been served on the petitioner on 24. 5. 1975, but since inspite of the service of notice there had been no objection by the petitioner, further steps had been taken in accordance with the provision of the Act. The declaration of the lands of the petitioner as surplus lands was, therefore, neither illegal nor in any other way vitiated. Averments have also been made in the counter affidavit in support of the merit of the matter. 4. It appears to us that the crucial question in this case is whether there was service of notice on the petitioner of the draft statement under Section 10 (1) of the Act, in accordance with the provision of law. If there was no such service, the action taken by the authorities has to be quashed and the matter has to be determined afresh. 5. If there was no such service, the action taken by the authorities has to be quashed and the matter has to be determined afresh. 5. The relevant rule in relation to the service of notice is rule 3 of the Bihar Land Ceiling Rules, 1963 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Rules'). The relevant sub-rules of the Rules are sub-rules (5) and (7) which are as follows :- "(5) Where the person to be served with notice or order on his agent or such other person as aforesaid refused to sign the acknowledgment, or where the serving officer, after using all due and reasonable diligence, cannot find the person to be served with the notice or order and there is no agent empowered to accept service of notice or order on his behalf, or any other person on whom service can be made, service may be made by affixing a copy of the notice or order on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house in which the person to be served with the notice or order ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain or on the outer door of the office, if any, of the person to whom the notice or order relates. "(7) (i) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing sub-rules the Collector shall in cases of service of notice or order under sub-rules (5) and may in other cases if he thinks fit order that the notice or order shall be served;- (a) by sending a copy thereof, duly signed and sealed by registered post with acknowledgment due, to the person on whom such notice or order is to be served or (b) XX XX XX" It would thus be seen that sub-rule (5) of the rules requires that where there is refusal to accept notice then person entrusted with the service of notice has to affix a copy of the notice on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house in which the person to be served with the notice resides~ Sub-rule (7) (i) (a) of the Rules makes it clear that if there has been service of notice as contemplated in sub-rule (5) of the Rules, that is to say, there has not been a personal service of notice but by affixation of the notice in the house of the person to be served with the notice, a notice under registered cover has also to be issued. This provision is a salutary provision in order to avoid any scope for saying that there has been no real service of notice on the person concerned and thereby eliminating cause of unnecessary controversy. What has now to be seen is whether the provisions of sub-rules 5 and 7 of the Rules have been complied with in this case. 6. So far as the compliance with the provision of sub-rule (7) of the Rules is concerned, it is clear that there was no compliance as there is no statement in the counter-affidavit to the effect that there was any attempt of service of notice through registered post. The failure to comply with sub-rule (7) of the Rules would have been by itself sufficient to bring infirmity in the entire proceeding. But, in this case we also find that there is no statement in the counter-affidavit that there was affixation of the copy of notice on the outer door or in some conspicuous part of the house of the petitioner. What has been stated in a bald form in the counter-affidavit is that the notice was tendered to the petitioner who refused to grant notice. 7. What has been stated in a bald form in the counter-affidavit is that the notice was tendered to the petitioner who refused to grant notice. 7. We, accordingly, quash the notifications and the proceeding since after the initiation thereof. Because of the wrong procedure in this case, there has already been considerable delay in the disposal of the matter, we think it proper to fix a date on which the petitioner should present himself before the L. R. D. C. and place his objection, if he so likes, on the date we are fixing. The respondents will also be entitled to issue notice to the petitioner or to such other person or persons as they may deem fit and proper. We, therefore, fix the 25th August, 1976 as the date on which the petitioner should appear before the L. R, D. C. to place his objection if he so likes. This application is allowed to the extent indicated above. Application allowed.