D. S. SINHA, J. Heard Shri Shakti Swaroop Nigam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri Vinay Malaviya, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents No. 1,2 and 3. 2. The notification dated 19th June, 1982, issued by the Collector, Saharanpur under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended by and applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh, hereinafter called the Act, published in the U. P. Gazette dated 30th October, 1982, a copy whereof is annexure-4 to the petition, is under chal lenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. The principal ground on which the notification is attacked, as contained in paragraph 11 of the petition, is that the Collector, Saharanpur, respondent No. 2, did not give public notice of the substance of the notification at convenient places in the locality where the land sought to be ac quired is situated. 4. In reply to the above assertions of the petitioners it is stated in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents No. 1,2 and 3 that apart from making publication in the Gazette publicity for the land to be acquired was made by beat of drums and also by affixing a copy of the notification at conspicuous places near the land. Thus, all the formalities as con templated under Section 4 (1) of the Act were observed by giving publicity of the said notification. 5. In the rejoinder affidavit petitioners reiterate their stand taken in paragraph 11 of the writ petition. They further state that averments made in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit are false and vague. They also point out that the contesting respon dents have not given even the date when the beat of drum was done in the locality and the date of affixation of the copy of the notifica tion at conspicuous places near the land. 6. The question whether the provisions of Section 4 (1) with regard to the public notice of the substance of the notification at convenient places in the concerned locality is disputed by the parties. 7. 6. The question whether the provisions of Section 4 (1) with regard to the public notice of the substance of the notification at convenient places in the concerned locality is disputed by the parties. 7. Therefore, with a view to arrive at correct conclusion the Court, by its order dated 6th December, 1996, required learned Standing Counsel to produce relevant record evidencing the factum of compliance of requirement of causing public notice of the substance of the impugned notification in the concerned locality. 8. From the perusal of the record produced by the learned Standing Counsel it transpires that the public notice of the substance of the notification was given at the convenient places in the locality con cerned by fixation as well as by beat of drums on 28th November, 1982. Obviously, the alleged compliance of the provisions of Sec tion 4 (1) with regard to causing public notice of the substance of the notification at convenient places in the concerned locality was done after expiry of a period of 21 days of the date of the publication of the notice, namely, 30th October, 1982, the period during which the petitioners could file their objection under Section 5-A of the Act. 9. The legal position that requirement of causing public notice of the substance of the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act at convenient places in the locality where the land sought to be acquired is situate is mandatory; and that non com pliance thereof renders the notification and proceedings in pursuance thereof invalid is no longer res-integra. A learned Single Judge of this Court considered the legal position in this regard at length and in detail, while rendering the decision in the case of Shrimati Daya Wati and another v. Collector, Saharanpur and another, AIR 1975 All. at page 202, and held that where the publication of substance of the notifica tion was not done in the locality within 21 days from the date of publication of Gazette notification the provisions of Section 4 (1) of the Act would not be deemed to have been complied with and the notification will be rendered invalid. The view taken by the learned Single Judge is sound and fortified by the decision of Honble Supreme Court of India, rendered in State of Mysore v. Abdul Razak Sahib, AIR 1973 SC 2361 . The view taken by the learned Single Judge is sound and fortified by the decision of Honble Supreme Court of India, rendered in State of Mysore v. Abdul Razak Sahib, AIR 1973 SC 2361 . The Court does not find any distinguishing feature in the instant case to take any different view. 10. The inevitable conclusion, there fore, is that the impugned notification is rendered invalid for non compliance of the provisions of Section 4 (1) of the Act relat ing to requirement of causing public notice of the substance of the notification at con venient places in the locality concerned. 11. In view of what has been said above the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned notification dated 19th June 1982, published in the official Gazette dated 30th October, 1982, a copy whereof is an-nexure-4 to the petition, is quashed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed. .