Judgment This is an application for quashing annexure 4' by which the objection filed by the petitioner purporting to be not under section 10 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') was not entertained on the ground that he has not filed the said objection in time after service of notice on him under section 10 (2) of the Act. 2. The case of the petitioner is that no notice under section 10(2) of the Act, was received by him and the only communication that was received on the 11th, August, 1975 are Annexures 1 'and 2' to this application. Treating the same to be the notice under section 10 (2) of the Act, an objection was filed under section 10 (3) of the Act, which respondent no.1 has failed to entertain. 3. If there was service of notice on the petitioner under section 10 (2) of the Act, it is clear that the petitioner would be held to be in laches and not entitled to have his objection entertained after expiry of the statutory period. If, however, no notice was served on him according to the provisions of law, the authorities concerned were bound in law to entertain his objection after he came to know that a notice had been issued to him. What has been stated in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit is that a copy of the draft statement in form 5 along with a notice in form 6 was served on the petitioner, which the petitioner personally received but refused to acknowledge the receipt. In this affidavit it is not even stated that there was affixation of a copy of the notice on the outer door or other conspicuous part of the house in which the petitioner resided. Thus, the affidavit does not fulfil the requirement of rule 3 (5) of the Bihar Land Ceiling Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules'). Moreover, in this case the mandatory provisions of rule 3 (7) of the Rules have not been complied with. There is no averment that any attempt was made to serve notice on the petitioner under registered post. We have already held in the case of Rajeshwari Prasad Singh Vs. Moreover, in this case the mandatory provisions of rule 3 (7) of the Rules have not been complied with. There is no averment that any attempt was made to serve notice on the petitioner under registered post. We have already held in the case of Rajeshwari Prasad Singh Vs. The Land Refo ms Deputy Collector and others 1976 BBCJ 546 decided on the 4th of August, j 976 that where there is no personal service as contemplated under rule 3 of the Rules, there should be Service of notice through registered cover as required under rule 3 (7) of the Rules. This provisions is mandatory. The same having not been followed it has to be held that respondent no. 1 erred in law in not entertaining the objection of the petitioner under section 10 (3) of the Act. The action taken by the authorites concerned in declaring the lands of the petitioner as surplus land without compliance with the provisions of law is, therefore, held to be illegal and in contravention of the provisions of the Act. We, accordingly, quash Annexure 4'. Respondent no. 1 is directed to entertain and decide the objection of the petitioner which has already been filed before him. 4. Since considerable time has already elapsed, after initiation of the proceeding, we direct that the petitioner should present himself before the land Reforms Deputy Collector (respondent no.1) on the 1st September, 1976 to press his objection and to lead such evidence as he may think, proper in support of his case. 5. In the result we allow this application to the extent indicated above. In the circumstances of the case, however, there will be no order as to costs. Application allowed in Part.