JUDGMENT Deoki Nandan, J. - Although the appellants described in this appeal are : (1) U.P. Government, through Collector, Ghazipur; (2) Sub Divisional Officer, Zamania, district Ghazipur; and (3) Tahsildar, Zamania, district Ghazipur, it is the State of Uttar Pradesh which is, in fact, the appellant. 2. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 had, by this suit giving rise to the Second Appeal, claimed that the acquisition proceedings started by the defendants in respect of two plots of land Nos. 1889 and 1890 of village Suhwal, Pargana Zaraania, district Ghazipur, be declared ultra vires and illegal, and they may be restrained from acquiring the same for making a passage for Harijans of village Suhwal. 3. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the lower appellate court has decreed it ; hence the Second Appeal. The first three defendants in the suit are the appellants in this Court and the fourth defendant, Sahadeo Saran Rai, Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha of the Village, is the defendant-respondent No. 2 in this Court. 4. This was not a case of acquisition of land, but of requisition of the said two plots of land by the Tahsildar, Zamanaia, under an order dated the 7th May, 1965, passed under Section 3 of the U.P. Rural Development (Requisitioning of land) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The relevant portion of the order reads as under vide-Ext. A-3 :- "Whereas on the move of the District Planning Officer, I am satisfied that the need of pathway from Harijan Basti to northern side of the village leading to main abadi is quite genuine and the land mentioned below is urgently required for construction of this pathway. Accordingly I hereby order under Section 3 of the U.P. Rural Development (Requisitioning of land) Act, 1948 that the land mentioned in the schedule given below be requisitioned for the above said public purposes. Let notices be served on the owners and occupiers of the land to this effect directing them to hand over the possession of the said land within 7 days of the receipt of this notice. 5. Necessary compensation for the land requisitioned including any damage done to crops etc. shall be paid according to the provisions contained in the U.P. Rural Development (Requisitioning of land) Act, 1948 and Rules framed thereunder. 5. Necessary compensation for the land requisitioned including any damage done to crops etc. shall be paid according to the provisions contained in the U.P. Rural Development (Requisitioning of land) Act, 1948 and Rules framed thereunder. All interested persons are required to submit their claims for compensation in writing within 30 days from the date of service of the notice, after which no claim shall be entertained. 6. The land so requisitioned shall be made over to the District Planning Officer or any Officer subordinate to him duly authorised for the purpose, for its management and superintendence for the pathway given in para one above. Necessary funds for payment of compensation shall be arranged by the District Planning Officer and placed at my disposal immediately on receipt of intimation to this effect from me. The lower appellate court has held, on an appraisal of the material on the record, that the aforesaid order cannot be deemed to have been passed under Section 7 of the Act, that the opinion of the authority requisitioning the land under Section 3 of the Act had to be objectively formed on relevant considerations and that such an order was open to question if it was not passed in good faith. According to the finding recorded by the lower appellate court, there was building existing on the land which was sought to be requisitioned, and, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, no sensible person could, on the material before him form the opinion that it is necessary or expedient to requisition the land in suit for a public pathway, and that action should be taken to requisition it for that purpose under Section 3 of the Act. 7. Having perused the judgment of the lower appellate court, while I may not agree with all the reasons given by the learned Judge for arriving at the ultimate conclusion which he has arrived at, I agree with hum that ibis was not a case where the land in suit could have been requisitioned for the purposes of making a village pathway, under Section 3 of the U.P. Rural Development (Requisitioning of Land) Act, 1948 by any person acting honestly and in good faith and due discharge of his official duties. 8. A building had been constructed on the land. 8. A building had been constructed on the land. In order to achieve the avowed purpose of requisitioning the land for making a village path way through it, it would have been necessary to demolish the building. II the making of the village pathway was, under the circumstances, considered absolutely essential by the requisitioning authority for achieving the object, he would have as an honest Government Officer proceeded to acquire the land permanently under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, rather than to resort to the provisions of the U.P. Rural Development (Requisitioning of Land) Act, 1948, the object and purpose of which was limited to purposes like those defined in clause (2) of Section 2, and the achievement of which was possible by requisitioning vacant or even arable land. According to Rule 7 of the Rules made under the Act, a requisition has to be regarded as a lease without a premium but with a half-yearly or annual rent - as the case may be - calculated in accordance with the principles contained in sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Act, and the principles contained in that provision require the taking into consideration, of the rent, if any, assessed on the land which has been requisitioned the 'sayai' income, if any, derived from such land, the value of any trees which as a result of the requisition have to be removed from the land, and the benefit which the use of the land is likely to confer on any other property owned or occupied by the person whose property is requisitioned. A requisition of land is in its very nature not permanent. Section 10 of the Act itself contemplates release from requisition when the object of the requisition is achieved. 9. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the impugned order was beyond the scope of Section 3 of the Act and not being, in law, an order passed under the Act, nothing contained therein could bar the jurisdiction of the civil court to give relief to the plaintiff-respondent from the arbitrary and unlawful exercise of power by the Tahsildar under colour of the provisions of Section 3 of the Act The suit was, in my opinion, rightly decreed by the lower appellate court. 10. 10. The appeal fails; but as no one appeared for the plaintiff-respondent in spite of the due service of the notice on him, there shall be no order as to costs.