JUDGMENT S. N. Phukan, J.—This is an appeal by the State against the order of acquittal by the judgment dated 9-7-1986 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan, District Sirmour in Criminal Case No. 115/3 of 1984. By the impugned judgment the learned trial Court acquitted nine accused-respondents under section 4 (3) of the Himachal Pradesh Land Preservation Act, 1978 (for short the Act). 2. Briefly stated, the allegation against the accused-respondents is that the accused persons illicitly felled trees of different classes from private areas of village Satna comprised in khasra numbers as. mentioned in the judgment without marking. A prima facie case was found under section 4 (3) of the Act against the accused persons. The accused persons pleaded not, guilty. The learned trial Court mainly considered as to whether for want of notification under sections 3, 4, 6 and 8 of the Act the conviction is not sustainable. 3. Heard Mr. Mohan Lai Chauhan, learned Asstt. Advocate General and Ms. Abhilasha Kumari, learned Counsel for the accused respondents. 4. For the purpose of the present case sections 3, 4 and 8 are relevant and are quoted below : "3. Notification of areas.—Whenever it appears to the State Government that it is desirable to provide for the conservation of subsoil water or the prevention of erosion in any area subject to erosion or likely to become subjected to erosion, the State Government may, by notification published in the official Gazette, make a direction accordingly. 4. Notification of areas.—Whenever it appears to the State Government that it is desirable to provide for the conservation of subsoil water or the prevention of erosion in any area subject to erosion or likely to become subjected to erosion, the State Government may, by notification published in the official Gazette, make a direction accordingly. 4. Power to regulate, restrict or prohibit, by general or special order, within notified areas, certain matters.—in respect of areas notified under section 3 generally or the whole or any part of any such area, the State Government may, by general or special order, temporarily regulate, restrict or prohibit : (a) the clearing or breaking up or cultivating of land not ordinarily under cultivation prior to the publication of the notification under section 3 ; (b) the quarrying of stone or the burning of lime at places where such stone or lime had not ordinarily been so quarried or burnt prior to the publication of the notification under section 3 ; (c) the cutting of trees of timber, or the collection or removal or subjection to any manufacturing process, otherwise than as described in Clause (b) of this section, of any forest produce other than gross save for bonafide domestic or agricultural purposes of a right holder in such area ; (d) the setting on fire of trees, timber or forest produce ; (e) the admission, herding, pasturing or retention of sheep, goats or camels ; (f) the examination of forest produce passing out of any such area ; and (g) the granting of permits to the inhabitants of towns and villages situated within the limits or in vicinity of any such area to take any tree, timber or forest produce, for their own use therefrom or to pasture sheep, goats, or camels or to cultivate or erect buildings therein and the production and return of such permits by such persons. 8. 8. Proclamation of regulations, restrictions and prohibitions and admission of claims for compensation for rights which are restricted or prohibited.—(1) When in respect of any area a notification has been published under section 3, and— (a) upon such publication any general order made under section 4 or section 6 becomes applicable to such area, or (b) any special order under sections 4, 5 or 6 is made in respect of such area, the Deputy Commissioner shall cause public notice of the provisions of such general or special order to be given, and if the provisions of any such order restrict or prohibit the exercise of any existing , rights, shall also publish in the language of the country and in every town and village the boundaries of which include any portion or area within or over which the exercise of any such rights is so restricted or prohibited, a proclamation stating the regulation, restrictions or prohibitions, which have been imposed by any such order, within the limits of such area or m any part or parts thereof, fixing a period of not less than three months from the date of such proclamation and requiring every person claiming any compensation in respect of any right so restricted or prohibited, within such period either to present to such officer a written notice specifying, or to appear before him and state the nature and extent of such right and the amount and particulars of the compensation, if any, claimed in respect thereof. (2) Any claim not preferred within the time fixed in the proclamation made under sub-section (1), shall be rejected : Provided that, with the previous sanction of the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner may admit any such claim as if it had been made within such period " 5. Learned Counsel for the accused respondents has very fairly stated that whether the above sections of the Act are mandatory or not, there is no law laid down by this court. Therefore, the learned Counsel has drawn attention of this court to the provisions of the Indian Forest Act. 6. Learned Counsel for the accused respondents has very fairly stated that whether the above sections of the Act are mandatory or not, there is no law laid down by this court. Therefore, the learned Counsel has drawn attention of this court to the provisions of the Indian Forest Act. 6. Attention of this court has been drawn by the learned Counsel for the accused-respondents to the decision of this court in Mani Ram v. State, 1982 SIJ (HP) 441, wherein it was held that if there is no notification under section 30 of the Indian Forest Act, conviction under section 33 (1) (c) is not sustainable. 7. Next case on which the learned Counsel has placed reliance is in Hira Lal v. State of H P., ILR 1986 HP 71. The learned Single Judge of this court has also held as follows : "8. A combined reading of the provisions of sections 29, 30, 31 and 33 of the Act, therefore, suggest that in order to bring home a charge punishable under section 33 (1) (a) the prosecution must allege and prove that : (i) the accused had felled, girdled, lopped, tapped or burnt any tree or stripped off the barks or leaves from or otherwise damaged any tree ; (ii) the tree forming subject-matter of the offence was standing on any forest-land which had been declared as protected forest by a notification validly issued under section 29 of the Act; (iii) the tree aforesaid had been declared as reserved under a notification .issued by the State Government in accordance with the provisions of section 30 of the Act; and (iv) a translation into the local vernacular of the notification issued under section 30 of the Act had been affixed in a conspicuous place in the town or village in the neighbourhood of the forest comprised in that notification. All the four factors enumerated above are essential in order to constitute an offence punishable under section 33 (1) (a) of the Act." 8. The next decision on which the learned Counsel for the accused- respondents has placed reliance is in State of H. P. v. Ami Chand, 1992 (2) Sim LC 169. The learned Single Judge of this Court held that section 31 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 is mandatory and that issuance of notification must be duly published as contemplated by the said section. 9. The learned Single Judge of this Court held that section 31 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 is mandatory and that issuance of notification must be duly published as contemplated by the said section. 9. Coming to the case in hand, I find that section 8 of the Act regarding issuance of proclamation by the Deputy Commissioner is also in similar language as per section 31 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 inasmuch as according to this section the Collector shall cause a transaction into the local vernacular of every notification issued under section 30 to be affixed in a conspicuous place in every town and village in the neighbour hood of the forest comprised in the notification. 10. From the long title of the Act it appears that this piece of legislation was enacted to provide better preservation and protection of certain portions of the territories of Himachal Pradesh. For implementing the Act the State Government has to issue first a notification under section 3 of the Act if it appears to the State Government that it is desirable to provide for conservation of sub-soil water or the prevention of erosion in any area subject to erosion. Such notification has to be issued in the official Gazette. This notification is general in character and thereafter follows section 4. Under section 4 in respect of areas notified under section 3, the State Government may temporarily regulate, restrict or prohibit the activities as mentioned in the said section which includes cutting of trees and this is to be done by issuing another notification. Thereafter comes into operation section 8 which has got two parts. Under section 4 in respect of areas notified under section 3, the State Government may temporarily regulate, restrict or prohibit the activities as mentioned in the said section which includes cutting of trees and this is to be done by issuing another notification. Thereafter comes into operation section 8 which has got two parts. First the Deputy Commissioner has to cause public notice regarding any general or special order issued by the State Government under sections 3 and 4 and, secondly, if the provisions of any such order of the State Government restrict or prohibit the exercise of any existing right, the Deputy Commissioner shall also publish in the language of the country and in every town and village the boundaries of which include any portion of the area within or over which the exercise of any such right is so restricted or prohibited, a proclamation stating the above regulation, restriction or prohibition which have been imposed fixing a period not less than three months from the date of such proclamation and requiring every person claiming any compensation in respect of any right so restricted or prohibited within such period either to present to such officer a written notice specifying, or to appear before him and state the nature and extent of such right and the amount and particulars of the compensation, if any, claimed in respect thereof. 11. As stated above, the language of section 8 regarding publication of proclamation/notice is similar to section 31 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, therefore, as has been held that the above section is mandatory by the above decisions on which the learned Counsel for the accused-respondents has placed reliance, I hold that Sec. 8 is also mandatory. In addition, I may add here that by issuing notification under sections 3 and 4 a valuable right of a citizen is sought to be taken away, of course, in the public interest. That apart, for violation of any order passed under sections 3 and 4, there is a penal provision Therefore, I hold that issuance of public notice and publication of the notification in the language of the country and in every town and village and envisaged under section 8 of the Act is mandatory. That apart, for violation of any order passed under sections 3 and 4, there is a penal provision Therefore, I hold that issuance of public notice and publication of the notification in the language of the country and in every town and village and envisaged under section 8 of the Act is mandatory. I may add here that (he legislature being aware that ignorance of law is no excuse, has- specifically prescribed the procedure for publication of the proclamation in the local language as per section 8 of the Act. This is also a ground for holding that section 8 is mandatory in nature. 12. Admittedly in the case in hand, no such notification/proclamation was brought to the notice of the learned trial Court. Though Mr. Mohan Lal Chauhan, learned Asstt. Advocate General, has shown me a proclamation dated 25-3-1980 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Sirmour, I do not find that this proclamation was duly published as required under section 8 of the Act. Though in the memorandum portion of the said proclamation copies were sent to all the Tehsildars and Naib-Tehsildars for taking necessary action, but there is nothing on record to show that it was so published as required by section 8 13. That apart, this proclamation was never brought to the notice of the learned trial Court, Even if I hold that there was a notification, the only alternative would be to set aside the impugned judgment and remand the case for retrial. I say so as according to the learned Counsel for the accused-respondents, the land from where trees were felled belonged to private owners, but no private owner was examined. That apart, according to the learned Counsel for the accused-respondents, the accused persons are lessees and they felled the trees only ear-marked, for them. The case was instituted on 26-11-1984 aid after more than ten years it would not be in the interest of justice to remand this case for re-trial. On this ground also the appeal has to be dismissed. 14. As the respondents accused persons have been acquitted, they shall be entitled to get back the trees or the amount realised therefrom through action. With the above directions and observations, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.