JUDGMENT : B.L. YADAV, J. 1. By the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the impugned order dated 21st February, 1933 passed u/s 13(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Road Side Land Control Act, 1945 (for short the Act) by the city Magistrate, Rampur is sought to be quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari. The Petitioner is said to have contravened the provisions of section 5 of the Act inasmuch as he has raised a construction in the controlled area without previous permission of the Collector in writing. Consequently a notice was issued to him directing as to why not the penalty provided u/s 13 (thirteen) of the Act be imposed upon him. 2. The Petitioner replied the notice and also led evidence to the effect that in 1931 his father had purchased the land and there was no construction. 3. On behalf of the State of U.P., evidence was led to prove the declaration of the controlled area as provided u/s 3 of the Act and this was also proved that between Kms. 208 and 209 on Delhi-Bareilly road at a distance of 10 Mtrs. from the centre of the road, the Petitioner has constructed a hotel and raised construction in plot no. 81, this place was earlier vacant. The Petitioner was also served with a notice to stop the construction but he did not comply with the notice. Other evidence was also led to prove the case against the Petitioner. On behalf of the Petitioner, two witnesses were examined and the copy of the sale-deed was also filed. The witnesses stated that the hotel of the Petitioner was situate beyond the limit of the Town Area. Hence he was not liable for any penalty. 4. After considering the entire evidence on She record, the learned City Magistrate, Rampur disbelieved the evidence of the Petitioner and believed the evidence of led by the State and it was held that the land in dispute was within the controlled area as declared u/s 3 of the Act and that the Petitioner had raised the construction without the permission in writing obtained from the Collector as envisaged by section 5 of the Act. The impugned order was passed to the effect that the Petitioner has raised the construction without permission of the Collector in writing and the Petitioner was directed to demolish the construction within three months from the date of the impugned order otherwise he shall be dispossessed by force and the expenses incurred in that connection would be recoverable from the Petitioner as arrears of land revenue. 5. Sri Rajesh Ji Verma, learned Counsel for the Petitioner challenged the findings recorded by the City Magistrate that the Petitioner had raised the construction within the controlled area without written permission of the Collector, and that the direction given by the City Magistrate in the operative portion was in contravention of the provisions of section 13(2) of the Act. The relevant part of the section 13(2) of the Act is set out below : Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1) the Collector may order any person who has committed a breach of the provisions of the said sub-section to restore to its original state or to bring into conformity with the conditions which have been violated, as the case may be, any building or land in respect of which a contravention such as is described in the said sub-section has been committed, and if such person fails to do so within three months of the order, may himself take such measures as may appear to him to be necessary to give effect to the order, and the cost of such measures shall be recoverable from such person as arrear of land revenue 6. It was urged that there are two directions contemplated: first is to restore the land to its original state by demolishing construction raised by the Petitioner or to bring into conformity with the conditions which have been violated, as the case may be, and if such person fails to do so within three months of the order, the Collector may himself take such measures as may be necessary to give effect to the order and the cost incurred in such connection is recoverable from the person concerned as arrears of land revenue. learned Counsel for the Petitioner emphasised that taking of the possession by the City Magistrate by force contained in the order was not contemplated u/s 13(2) of the Act hence the same was manifestly erroneous and the entire order may be quashed. 7. learned Counsel for the Petitioner emphasised that taking of the possession by the City Magistrate by force contained in the order was not contemplated u/s 13(2) of the Act hence the same was manifestly erroneous and the entire order may be quashed. 7. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has supported the impugned order and urged that the impugned order was consistent with the provisions of the sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. It was also urged, that in any case, the second part of the order for taking forcible possession of the disputed construction was separable from the first part of the order hence only that much may be quashed and the first part of the order should be kept in tact. 8. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the first submission that the Petitioner did not raise construction within the controlled area is not acceptable in as much as after appreciating the evidence led by both the sides, the finding has been recorded that the Petitioner has contravened the provisions of section 5 (Five) of the Act and did not comply with the direction to stop the construction when the same was in progress. This is obviously a question of fact, which may not be considered in writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 9. As regards the second submission, we are of the opinion that section 13(2) of the Act is an enabling provision in respect of the orders to be passed by the Collector. 10. Before proceeding to ascertain the legislative intendment certain cardinal principles of interpretation of Statutes may be noticed. The elementary principle is that a section need not be read in isolation rather it has to be read with other provisions of the Statute. This principle also indicates that every part of the same section has to be read together. Section 13 of the Act may be read conjointly with sections 3 and 5 etc. Section 3 provides for declaration of controlled area, where as section 5 enacts the procedure that without permission of the Collector in writing no construction could be raised. This principle also indicates that every part of the same section has to be read together. Section 13 of the Act may be read conjointly with sections 3 and 5 etc. Section 3 provides for declaration of controlled area, where as section 5 enacts the procedure that without permission of the Collector in writing no construction could be raised. Section 13 provides the procedure when the violation of the rules and conditions have been committed in that event what are the penalties to be imposed and how and in what modes the orders have to be passed by the Collector or any other competent authority. 11. Having bearing on the subject there are certain Latin Maxims. ACTUS LEGITIMI NON RECIPIUNT MODUM, connotes that when the doing of a thing in a particular manner is sanctioned by law then the thing can not be done in a different way. The other is UTRES VALFAT POTIUS PER EAT which means that Court would avoid that construction which fails to achieve purpose of legislature. 12. In Taylor v. Taylor (1876) Ch. D. 426, Jessel M.R. observed at page 431; When a statutory power is conferred for the first time upon a Court and the mode of exercising it is pointed out, it means that no other mode is to be adopted. 13. In Nazir Ahamd v. The King Emperor (1936) 36 Ind. Appeals 372, it was held that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way that thing must be done in that way or not at all. 14. In State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Singhara Singh and Others, AIR 1964 SC 358 , 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. 15. In our opinion as the legislature has provided modes to pass an order when breach has been committed, it must be in that way alone. Section 13 has been enacted to lay down the penalties to be imposed on the persons who have failed to comply with the conditions imposed or pointed out by different provisions and how the orders have to be passed by the Court. Section 13 has been enacted to lay down the penalties to be imposed on the persons who have failed to comply with the conditions imposed or pointed out by different provisions and how the orders have to be passed by the Court. A bare reading of section 13(2) would indicate that in case the breach of the provision has been committed, the first order would be passed to restore the construction to its original State or to bring it into conformity with the conditions which have been violated. In other words, it was for the person who has contravened the condition to comply with the order and to either restore to its original state or to bring into conformity in original position or to demolish the construction, by whatever means it was possible The person concerned shall be given three months time to comply with the order. Thereafter another contingency has been contemplated, in case the person who contravened the condition, does not restore it to its original position or does not remove the construction himself, in that event it is for the Collector or the City Magistrate as the case may be, to give effect to the order, in other words to adopt such measures as may comply with the terms of the order strictly in accordance with the law. To put it differently, in case the person who has contravened the condition, has raised the construction, in that event the Collector may himself take steps to demolish the same or to bring it to the original position but certainly it is not contemplated that he would take forceful possession of the disputed construction. That would also not be convenient as just by taking possession would not be sufficient unless construction is demolished or the same is brought to the original position. 16. As the impugned order contains two directions and both are contained in the same order and both directions are separable from each other in that event it is possible that that part of the order which was not correct or which was not in accordance with the law, may be quashed and that part of the order which was correct may remain in tact. There is no denying the fact that if both the directions have been inter-mixed and it was not separable in that event it could have been considered to quash the entire order but in the present case one part of the order is separable from the second part of the order. Consequently, we are inclined to quash that part of the order and substitute it with a proper direction as is contemplated by Section 13(2) of the Act. 17. In view of the premises aforesaid the second part of the order directing that the City Magistrate would take forcible possession of the construction on the area is quashed and we direct that in place of that direction, the City Magistrate or the Officer parsing the impugned order would take such measures as may appear to him necessary to give effect to the impugned order, or in other words, he would adopt such measures as to bring the construction to its original state or to take such measures as may appear to him to be just and proper in accordance with the provisions of the law. 18. With the aforesaid modification in the impugned order, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. The interim stay Dt. 18-5-83 is vacated.