JUDGMENT : B.L. Yadav, J. By the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the orders dated 7th July, 1983 and 1st July, 1987, passed by the Competent Authority, Allahabad in proceedings u/s 8 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short the Act), for preparation of the draft statement as regards the plot of land held in excess of the ceiling limit, and the order dated 1st December, 1987 passed in appeal, are sought to be quashed by issuing a writ of Certiorari. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that a draft statement was submitted by the Petitioner, the owner of the holder of the land. The draft statement was served on the wife of the Petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Section 8(3) of the Act, stating that any objection to the draft statement may be preferred within 30 days of the service. Subsequent notices u/s 9 of the Act, rather in respect of final statement, were served on one Ram Abhilakh, the minor brother of the Petitioner and not on the Petitioner. 3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner urged that the notice u/s 8(3) of the Act, must have been served on the Petitioner, in accordance with the procedure contemplated by Rule 5 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Rules (for short the Rules), but notices were served, either on wife or the minor brother. Notices were not served by registered post. Consequently procedure contemplated for service of notice effecting the right and title of the Petitioner was violated. These statutory notices were sought to be served in compliance of the principle of natural justice. 4. Sri. Ratnakar Chaudhary learned Standing Counsel, on behalf of the Respondents, has urged that the substantial compliance has been done even if the registered notice has not been served on the Petitioner. The wife or the minor brother may be deemed to represent the interest of the Petitioner. 5. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties I am of the view that the procedure for service of notice u/s 8(3) of the Act has been provided by Rule 5 of the Rules which are set out below: 8(3). The wife or the minor brother may be deemed to represent the interest of the Petitioner. 5. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties I am of the view that the procedure for service of notice u/s 8(3) of the Act has been provided by Rule 5 of the Rules which are set out below: 8(3). 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 thirty days of the service thereof. 6. The elementary rule of interpretation of statutes is that all the provisions have to be read together and the provisions of the entire section have to be read in the context of other provision. In other words the interpretation has to be textured and contextual. As the procedure "contemplated is in connection with effectuating a legal right of the holder of the land, it is mandatory sometimes the word "shall" is used in the directory sense, but here it is mandatory, keeping in view the intention of the legislature. Notices contemplated by Section 8(3) were not served on the Petitioner, but on his wife who has no authority to receive notice on behalf of the Petitioner (see B.P. Khemka Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Birendra Kumar Bhowmick and Another, . 7. As regards service of notice of a subsequent stage on minor brother is concerned, that also cannot be said to be legal or valid. Under Rule 5(2)(c) of the Rules the procedure is that where the efforts to serve the draft statement and the notice on the holder of the vacant lands are not possible in that event only it can be on any other person referred to in Clause (a), in the manner specified in that clause. In that event the draft statement and notice must be served by affixing copies of the same in a conspicuous place in the office of the competent authority and also upon some conspicuous part of the house (if any) in which the holder of the vacant lands or as the case may be, the other person is known to have last resided. In the instant case no such efforts were made nor notices were served by affixing copies of the same in a conspicuous place in the office of the competent authority nor upon some conspicuous part of the house of the bolder, the present Petitioner. 8. There is a Latin Maxim Actus Legitimi Non Recipilint, Modlim, which connotes that when the doing of anything in a particular manner is sanctioned by the law, then the thing cannot be done in a different way. In Taylor v. Taylor (1876) Ch. D. 426, it was observed that when statutory power is conferred on a Court and the mode of exercising it is pointed out, it means that no other mode is to be adopted. In State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Singhara Singh and Others, it was held as follows: If a statute has conferred a power to do an act and has laid down method in which that power has to be exercised, it necessarily prohibits the doing of the act in any other manner, then that which has been prescribed. The principle behind the rule is that if this were not so, the statutory provision might as well not have been enacted. 9. In this case it cannot be said that the procedure contemplated by Section 8(3) of the Act and Rule 5, in respect of service of notice on the holder of the vacant land have been complied with. Consequently, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. 10. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders are quashed. The interim order dated 25-1-88 is vacated. Now it is open to the Competent Authority, Allahabad (under the U.P. Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 to proceed in accordance with law.