In this application the petitioner prays for quashing of notification nos. 8598 Patna dated 15. 10. 1975 and Monghyr dated 23.10.1975 by virtue where of the lands mentioned therein have been declard to be surplus lands of the petitioner under the provision of Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). The petitioner further prays for quashing of the proceedings under the Land Ceiling Act, being Land Ceiling Case No.3 of 1974/75.

2. The case of the petitioner is that on 15. 9. 1975 he received a draft statement under Section 10 (I) of the Act, and filed objection thereto under Section 10 (3) of the Act, on 4. 10. 1975. But, it now appears that even previous to filing of the objection, certain lands of petitioner and members of his family had been wrongly declared as surplus. In the writ application various grounds have been urged in support of the contention that the notification of the lands as surplus lands is illegal. It is not necessary in this writ application to adjudicate those contentions and examine the question whether and, if so, to what extent the petitioner and members of his family hold surplus lands.

3. A counter-affidavit has been filed in this case in which it is stated that the notice that was sent to the petitioner on 15. 9. 1975 was under Section 11of the Act. The notice under Section 10 (1) of the Act, had been served on the petitioner on 24. 5. 1975, but since inspite of the service of notice there had been no objection by the petitioner, further steps had been taken in accordance with the provision of the Act. The declaration of the lands of the petitioner as surplus lands was, therefore, neither illegal nor in any other way vitiated. Averments have also been made in the counter affidavit in support of the merit of the matter.

4. It appears to us that the crucial question in this case is whether there was service of notice on the petitioner of the draft statement under Section 10 (1) of the Act, in accordance with the provision of law. If there was no such service, the action taken by the authorities has to be quashed and the matter has to be determined afresh.

5. The relevant rule in relation to the service of notice is rule 3 of the Bihar Land Ceiling Rules, 1963 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Rules'). The relevant sub-rules of the Rules are sub-rules (5) and (7) which are as follows :-

"(5) Where the person to be served with notice or order on his agent or such other person as aforesaid refused to sign the acknowledgment, or where the serving officer, after using all due and reasonable diligence, cannot find the person to be served with the notice or order and there is no agent empowered to accept service of notice or order on his behalf, or any other person on whom service can be made, service may be made by affixing a copy of the notice or order on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house in which the person to be served with the notice or order ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain or on the outer door of the office, if any, of the person to whom the notice or order relates.

"(7) (i) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing sub-rules the Collector shall in cases of service of notice or order under sub-rules (5) and may in other cases if he thinks fit order that the notice or order shall be served;-

(a) by sending a copy thereof, duly signed and sealed by registered post with acknowledgment due, to the person on whom such notice or order is to be served or

(b) XX XX XX"

It would thus be seen that sub-rule (5) of the rules requires that where there is refusal to accept notice then person entrusted with the service of notice has to affix a copy of the notice on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house in which the person to be served with the notice resides~ Sub-rule (7) (i) (a) of the Rules makes it clear that if