An order of requisition under the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948, is validly served if it is served in accordance with the alternative modes prescribed in the Act and Rules, even if personal service is not possible.

In this application, the petitioner Kali Prasad Poddar challenges an order of requisition of a plot of land in Mouza Kamranga in the district of Howrah. The order has been passed under sub-section (1A) of Section 3 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), The impugned order was passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Howrah, requisitioning the land mentioned above for the establishment of a Maternity-cum-Child Welfare Centre with indoor beds. The petitioner obtained the present Rule principally on the allegation that, though he is the owner of the land in question, no notice under Section 3(2) of the Act was served on him. He alleges that he came to know from his brother Debi Prosad Poddar on whom notice was served that the order of requisition has been passed.

2. Mr. Sanjoy Bhattacharyya, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner strenuously contended before me that there has been no service of notice under Section 3(2) of the Act on the petitioner and consequently the order of requisition would not be validly enforced in respect of the land in question.

3. In order to appreciate the contention it is necessary to set out Section 3(2) of the Act which is as follows :–

"An order under sub-section (1) shall be served in the prescribed manner on the owner of the land and where the order relates to land in occupation of an occupier, not being the owner of the land, also on such occupier".

4. In the instant case, since the petitioner is admittedly the owner of the land, the order of requisition has to be served on him "in the prescribed manner".

5. The manner of service is prescribed by the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Rules 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules", Rule 3 whereof provides as follows :–

"Manner of Service of Orders,–An order under sub-section (1) of section 3 shall be served on the owner of the land and where the order relates to land in occupation of an occupier not being the owner of the land, also on such occupier–

(a) by delivering or tendering a copy thereof, endorsed either by the person authorised by the Act to make the order or by the Collector, to the person on whom the order is to be served or his agent, or

(b) by fixing a copy thereof on the outer door of some conspicuous part of the house in which the person on whom the order is to be served ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, or

(c) by sending the same to the person on whom the order is to be served by registered post with acknowledgment due or,

(d) by fixing a copy thereof in some conspicuous part of the land to which the order relates and also in some conspicuous place of the office of the Collector."

6. Before I deal with the legal contentions advanced by Mr. Bhattacharjee, it will be useful to note the factual aspect with regard to the service of the impugned order in the present case. These facts appear from a supplementary affidavit of Bimal Chandra De to the affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the respondents. Shri De is a process server in the Land Acquisition Collector's Office at Howrah. According to the affidavit which is affirmed on the 7th June 1976, the deponent first went to Calcutta Jute Mill to serve the notice of requisition. He however did not find the persons concerned. He ascertained that one of the persons on whom he was to serve the notice viz., Dayaram Poddar was dead. Thereafter he returned the notice in respect of Dayaram Poddar to the office. Then he hung the notices in the name of Kali Prosad Poddar, the petitioner herein, and Debi Prosad Poddar on the main gate of the Jute Mill in the presence of witnesses. On the following day, i. e. on the 29th April, he went to 5, Taracband Dutta Street which is the residence of the petitioner and Debi Prosad Poddar. He was informed by the inmates of the house that those persons were not in the house. As no one was willing to accept the notices, he hun