https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291829 Service of notice was a mandatory precondition before land could be brought under cultivation and allotted, and the finding of service could not rest on an unverified process server's report. Because the serving officer was not examined on oath and the report was not supported by affidavit, it was not admissible evidence to prove notice under the applicable procedural requirements. In the absence of proper notice, the authority lacked jurisdiction to proceed ex parte, and the allotment order was therefore without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. Section 6 of the U.P. Land Utilization Act did not bar the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227. en-us Tue, 15 Jan 1952 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Nov 2020 17:36:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291829 Service of notice was a mandatory precondition before land could be brought under cultivation and allotted, and the finding of service could not rest on an unverified process server's report. Because the serving officer was not examined on oath and the report was not supported by affidavit, it was not admissible evidence to prove notice under the applicable procedural requirements. In the absence of proper notice, the authority lacked jurisdiction to proceed ex parte, and the allotment order was therefore without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. Section 6 of the U.P. Land Utilization Act did not bar the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 15 Jan 1952 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291829