M. K. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) ). This is a States appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court 5 court Ahmedabad on 26th February 1964 in civil suit No. 1703 of 1970 decreeing the respondent-plaintiffs suit for a declaration that the impugned notice dated 31st January 1970 issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer under sec. 16 of the Land Acquisition Act (the Act) to take possession of the acquired land was illegal without authority and void and granting a perpetual injunction against the defendant its officers etc. from taking possession of the suit land in execution of the said notice. ( 2 ) ). On the evidence led before it the trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff proved that he was a sub lessee of the suit land and in occupation of a godown thereon constructed by him from prior to the date of notification under sec. 4 (1) of the Act published on 22nd September 1962 and hence a person interested. It therefore held that the acquisition so far as the plaintiffs right in the suit land is concerned is illegal without authority and void. It therefore parsed a decree in favour of the plaintiff as earlier stated and hence this appeal by the State that is the original defendant. ( 3 ) ). Mr. Chhaya the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the appellant contends that in the instant case it was the duty of the plaintiff to get his name entered in the municipal record so that the Government would come to know about his interest in the property. He having not done sos it would disentitle him to any notice and it would therefore not be competent for him to urge that because of want of a notice the acquisition proceedings so far as the land in his occupation are concerned are illegal and void and he cannot be dispossessed in pursuance of the various notifications issued concerning the suit land. ( 4 ) ). Mr. Chhaya in support of this contention of his strongly relies on MADHUKANTABEN WD/o MAGANLAL DWARKADAS SHAH V. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER 14 G. L. R. 506. ( 4 ) ). Mr. Chhaya in support of this contention of his strongly relies on MADHUKANTABEN WD/o MAGANLAL DWARKADAS SHAH V. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER 14 G. L. R. 506. Referring to the observations of Vakil J. in ASHOKKUMAR GORDHANBHAI V. STATE 10 G. L. R. 503 J. B. Mehta J who delivered the judgment of the court observed as follows :"therefore it was held that personal notice was required to be served on the persons interested and this being a condition precedent to the issuance of the notification under sec. 6 the Notification would be invalid and would have to be struck down. Mr. Majmudar wrongly involves these observations in this case. Vakil. J. in terms contemplated in this implied reading of a personal notice to persons interested that they were persons in occupation about whose interests the Government in normal circumstances would be expected to know and that such persons must to given a personal notice to file their objections under sec. 5a. In the present case even when Maganlal the husband of the plaintiff expired on March 15 1957 the plaintiff widow never took any steps to get her name mutated in the Government record. Under sec. 135 (c) of the Land Revenue Code it was obligatory on her to send such intimation within the period of three months. It is in these circumstances that the notice was issued in the name of the deceased Maganlal in whose name these two lands stood in the Government record. Therefore this was not a case where the Government in normal circumstances could be expected to know that the person in whose name the lands stood must have expired and therefore a personal notice to file objections must be given to the heirs. "it would be thus seen that in Madhukantas case (supra) though it was incumbent on the heirs to get their names mutated in the Government record within the period prescribed after expiry of the predecessor in title the widow failed to do so and therefore in this context it was observed that this was not a case where the Government in the normal circumstances would be expected to know that the person in whose name the lands stood must have expired and therefore a personal notice to file objection must be given to the heirs. We are concerned here with a case in which the sub-lessee in occupation is proved to be in occupation for a number of years. His structure on the acquired land is also standing for a number of years and there is documentary evidence showing that he is in occupation as a sub-lessee. There is no obligation cast upon him or duty imposed on him under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act to get his name entered in the municipal records. If such an obligation was there and he had failed to get his name entered then this would certainly be a case which would be covered by the ratio laid down in 14 G. L. R. 506 He being in occupation for a very long period as a lessee and he having put up a structure on the land of his own at his own expense he answered the test of a person interested and as such entitled to a notice and therefore the interest of such a person the Government in the normal circumstances would be expected to know He was thus entitled to a personal notice under the Land Acquisition Rules and in the instant case therefore the principle of audi alteram partem will apply and the Government will not be entitled to take possession of the suit land in occupation of the plaintiff in pursuance of the impugned notice. Appeal dismissed. .