JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J. - Is Petionunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India arises out of proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short the Act). 2. The facts leading to this petition are that the Petitioners were tenure holders of plot Nos. 62 and 63 situate in village Chak Niratul, Tahsil Chail, district Allahabad. These plots were situated at the outskirt of the city of Allahabad and they were under the Municipal Corporation and were governed by the provisions of the Act. The Petitioners submitted a return u/s 6(1) of the Act on 15.09.1976 there the Competent Authority, Allahabad and the same was registered as Case No. 1066 of 1976, State v. Mohammad Islam. Thereafter no notice was received by the Petitioners about the order passed on the statement filed by the Petitioners u/s 6(1) of the Act. On 08.03.1979bsomebofficial of the Ceiling Department enquired about the Petitioners' residence and informed them that some part of the plots of the Petitioners has been declared as surplus by an exparte order dated 20-6-78 (Annexure-1 to the petition). The Petitioners immediately thereafter moved an application for restoration purporting to be u/s 45 of the Act read with Section 151, Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC calling there parte order, stating that the Petitioners were not served with any draft statement issued u/s 8 of the Act and no service was effected in view of procedure contemplated by Section 8(2) of the Act and the relevant rules. The exparte order was illegal, without any notice to the Petitioners and was passed without hearing them, hence the same may be recalled. 3. The Competent Authority, however, rejected the said application by order dated 12.08.1979 Annexure-2 to the petition). The Petitioners appeal u/s 33 of the Act also met the same fate. It is against these two orders the present petition has been filed. 4. Sri H.C. Kharbanda, learned Counsel for the Petitioners urged that the procedure contemplated by Section 8(3) of the Act was mandatory and condition precedent for passing any subsequent order against the Petitioners; and unless a notice as contemplated by this provision was served, in the manner prescribed, no further order can be passed on the draft statement and as no notice was served on the Petitioners all the subsequent proceedings were illegal and without jurisdiction. The order declaring surplus land was also without jurisdiction. The learned Counsel placed reliance on Laxmi Narain an and Prakash v. Commissioner of Sales Tax U.P. AIR 1980 All. 195 (FB), Shantanu Kumar v. State of U.P. 1979 AWC 585 (FB) and Sharif-ud-din Vs. Abdul Gani Lone, AIR 1980 SC 303 . 5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State urged that the impugned orders were correct and no interference was required and whether the Petitioners were served with notice or not, was a finding of fact and the petition was devoid of merits. 6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The main point for consideration in this petition is as to whether any notice was served on the Petitioner as contemplated by Section 8(3) of the Act. In order to appreciate the controversy it would be better to set out the relevant provision of Section 8: 8. Preparation of draft statement as regards vacant land held in excess of Ceiling limit. (i) on the basis of statement filed u/s 6 and after such enquiry as the Competent Authority shall prepare a draft statement in respect of a person who has filed the statement u/s 6. (iii) the draft statement shall be served in such manner as may be prescribed on the person concerned together with a notice stating that any objection to the draft statement shall be preferred within 30 days of the service thereof. 7. Further Rule 5 of the Urban Land (Ceiling And Regulation Rules)1976 provides the procedure of service of notice and Rule 5(2) specifically lays down that the draft statement shall be served together with the notice referred to in Sub-section(3) of Section 8 on the holder of the vacant land and all other persons, so far as may be known, who have or likely to have any claim to or interest in the ownership or possession or both of the vacant land, by sending the same by registered post addressed to the person concerned. 8. In the instant case it has not been alleged on behalf of the Respondents that notices were served on the Petitioners as contemplated by Section 8(3) and Rule 5(2). 8. In the instant case it has not been alleged on behalf of the Respondents that notices were served on the Petitioners as contemplated by Section 8(3) and Rule 5(2). It was alleged in para 17 of the writ petition that before the District Judge the Petitioners have taken a specific plea that the notice as contemplated by Section 8(3) of the Act was not served on them, hence the Petitioners could not file any objection against the draft statement within time. This paragraph has been replied in para 15 of the counter affidavit filed by one Raj Pati Tivsari, Naib-Tahsildar, Urban Land Ceiling, Allahabad and in that paragraph it has not been mentioned that the notices were actually served by registered post on the Petitioners, rather it has been stated that after the publication of iamb order u/s 10(1) of the Act in the official gazette every body including the Petitioners will be deemed to have knowledge of the orders. The procedure u/s 10(1) of the Act is of the stage when the vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit has been acquired and the same is published with a view that the said vacant land would be acquired by the concerned State Government and this notification is made in the official gazette. But after the draft statement is prepared and served on the holder of the land and he files objection within thirty days or may be thereafter by explaining the delay and after considering the same, the surplus land is declared by making alteration in the draft statement in view of Section 9, hence all that was subsequent to the service of notice on the Petitioners. But as no notice was served on the Petitioners and even the Respondents did not deny the relevant statement contained in the writ petition, I am accordingly of the view that no notice was served on the Petitioners. Hence all the subsequent proceedings for determination of surplus land and publication of the same was without jurisdiction. 9. In Shantanu Kumar v. State of U.P. (Supra), a Full Bench of this Court held in similar circumstances that the service of notice as contemplated by Rule 8 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Rules was preliminary to the acquisition of jurisdiction to proceed in the matter to declare the land as surplus. 9. In Shantanu Kumar v. State of U.P. (Supra), a Full Bench of this Court held in similar circumstances that the service of notice as contemplated by Rule 8 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Rules was preliminary to the acquisition of jurisdiction to proceed in the matter to declare the land as surplus. In case the notice as required by Rule 8 was not served, all the subsequent proceedings about the declaration of surplus land would be without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed, 10. In Laxmi Narain An and Prakash v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., (Supra), a Full Bench of this Court in similar circumstances considering the effect of Section 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Rule Acts 1947 Rule of the rules framed there under held that the service of notice on the Assessee was a condition precedent. In that case notice was served not actually on the Assessee but on some other person who was not concerned with the Assessee and in that connection it was held that the entire proceedings were vitiated. Even though the Assessee might have participated in the proceedings but that would not give any jurisdiction to the authority to proceed in the matter and to decide the case against the Assessee The principle of estoppels was held not to be applicable nor just on the basis of consent or waiver the juries diction can be conferred on any particular authority if it lacks the same. 11. In Sharifuddin v. Abdul Ghani Khan Lone (Supra), the Supreme Court held that where a particular statute prescribes a mode, to be followed in proceeding in any matter that any particular act has to be done in a particular manner and also indicates that failure to comply with the same would result in some consequences it cannot be said that the requirement was not mandatory. In the instant case as the statutory requirement was in pursuance of the procedure prescribed u/s 8(3) of the Act, the draft statement was to be served in the manner prescribed on the person concerned along with a notice that the objection may be filed against the draft statement within thirty days. I am of the view that this provision was mandatory. I am of the view that this provision was mandatory. Further Rule 5(2) also prescribes that the notice as contemplated by Section 8 of the Act shall be served by registered post addressed to the person concerned. But as the same was not done, hence the Competent Authority has no jurisdiction to pass the order exparte against the Petitioners. I am accordingly of the view that the impugned orders are manifestly erroneous and cannot be sustained. 12. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders dated 16.04.1980 and20.06.1978s also the official publication in the gazette dated 26.07.1978nd 17.11.1978are hereby quashed. The Competent Authority is, however, directed to decide the matter afresh after serving the notice about the draft statement on the Petitioners in accordance with the procedure prescribed. Under the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.