( 1 ) THERE are three applicants in this writ application, namely, Lala Ramniranjan Lal, Lala Mata din and Lala Harinath. They pray for a writ, under Article 226 of the Constitution, quashing the order of the learned Additional District Magistrate of Kanpur, allotting a certain land to Sardar kartar Singh, opposite-party No. 2 and further prohibiting the learned Additional District magistrate from allotting the said land to any other person.

( 2 ) THE facts which have given rise to this application may be stated shortly. A piece of land nearly 40 acres was acquired by the father of the present applicants, Lala Munna Lal, from the government of India by a sale-deed dated 9th July 1946. It would appear that the land was, as a matter of fact, purchased in 1943, but the sale-deed was not executed until 9th July 1946. The applicants contention in the application and the affidavit which they have filed before this Court is that from that date right up to the date on which they were ordered to be dispossessed by the learned Additional Collector, they were in cultivatory possession of the land in dispute. Their case was that as the land was of a cultivated character in the Rabi and Kharif immediately preceding 28th January 1948, the learned Additional Collector had no jurisdiction to allot it under Section 3, U. P. Land Utilization Act, No. V [5] 1948, to the Opposite-party No. 2 or for the matter of that, to any other person.

( 3 ) THE order allotting the land to Opposite-party No. 2 is an ex parte order and was passed by the learned Additional Collector on 8th April 1950. It was passed by the learned Additional collector ex parte on the ground that notice had been issued to the zamindar applicants, that they had taken the notice but had refused to endorse the acknowledgment. He regarded that as sufficient service and proceeded with the case ex parte.

( 4 ) THE case has been argued very ably by Mr. Walter Dutt on behalf of the applicants and by Mr. Dhawan on behalf of the opposite-party No. 2. Learned counsel for the parties have covered a wide ground but, in our opinion, the case can be decided on a short point. After the ex parte order had been passed, the applicants went up to the learned Additional Collector in review. The learned Additional Collector refused to review his order on the ground that, under the Act, he had no power to review or set aside the order passed by him. In this, he was undoubtedly right. Incidentally he went into the merits of the case and also based his order on his estimate of the merits of the case as presented by opposite-party No. 2. We think it was quite unnecessary for him, after having come to the conclusion that he had no jurisdiction under the Act to review his order to go into the merits of the case.

( 5 ) THE U. P. Land Utilization Act, No. V of 1948, (hereinafter called the Act) received the assent of the Governor on 28th January 1948 and was published in the U. P. Government Gazette dated 7-2-1948. Its main objective would seem to be to provide for powers to utilize uncultivated land in order that the production of foodstuffs might be increased. It, therefore, vests in the collector with vast powers. Possibly the legislature thought that it was in the social interest that the collector should have powers of requiring by notice a landlord to let out his land or to arrange for its cultivation within 15 days thereof where that land is not grove land or land let out to or held by tenant and has not been cultivated or, if previously cultivated, has not been cultivated in the Rabi and Kharif immediately preceding the commencement of this Act. Section 2 of the Act lays down that the notice shall be served on the landlord by delivering or tendering to him a copy of such notice. It further indicates that if the landlord is not readily traceable or refuses to accept the notice, the service shall be effected by affixing a copy of such notice to the chaupal or some other public place in the vill