M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is disposed of at the stage of preliminary hearing after notice to respondents and after hearing the Counsel for parties. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Calcutta, but carrying its business activities among other places in Bangalore. The petitioner is the owner of land bearing S. Nos. 12/1 measuring 3 acres 5 guntas ; 13/1 measuring 34 guntas ; 13/2 measuring 35 guntas ; 13/3 measuring 1 acre 2 guntas ; and a portion of S. No. 14 measuring 4 acres 4 guntas. Thus owning lands in Nayanappasettipalya village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South tlk. in all measuring 10 acres. The said lands came to be notified for acquisition by the 1st respondent Bangalore, development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the B. D. A.) under sec. 17 ef thq Bangalore Development authority Act, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The said notification dt. 19th Septr. 1977, bearing. No. BDA/salao/capr (S)/131/77-78 was gazetted on 29th Septr. 1977. Thereafter, the final notification under sec. 19 of the Act was issued and gazetted on 9th March, 1978. The final notification bears the No. HUD 2 MNJ 78 dt. 7th Feb. 1978. ( 3 ) THE above two notifications are challenged in these proceedings as being in violation of the statutory rights of the petitioner Company in as much as no opportunity was given to the petitioner of being heard against the proposed acquisition after issue of the preliminary notification under Sec. 17 of the Act. The impugned notifications are produced at Annexures A and B to the writ petition. Broadly speaking, Secs, 17 and 19 of the Act correspond to Secs. 4 and 6 of the Land acquisition Act, 1894. ( 4 ) THE petitioner has averred that he came to purchase the lands in question by a registered sale deed dt. 6th april, 1972, from the Society of the brothers of the Holy Cross, Yercaud, a society registered under the Societies registration Act, 1960, in the State of tamil Nadu. A photostat copy of the registered sale deed is annexed to the said petition together with the plan of the lands in question. ( 5 ) THE 1st respondent Bangalore development Authority has entered appearance through its Counsel. A photostat copy of the registered sale deed is annexed to the said petition together with the plan of the lands in question. ( 5 ) THE 1st respondent Bangalore development Authority has entered appearance through its Counsel. The learned counsel has contended that notice as required under sub-sec. (5) of Sec. 17 of the Act was served on the owners shown in the revenue register and therefore the petitioner Company cannot now question the legality of the. proceedings culminating in the notification under Sec. 19 of the Act solely on the ground that it was not heard. ( 6 ) IN regard to other matters like the sale having taken place in 1972, there is no dispute. Therefore, the only question that falls for determination in this case is whether the notification issued under Sec. 19 of the Act should be set aside in so far as it affects the petitioner-Company for non-compliance with the requirements of Sub-sec. (5) of Sec. 17 of the Act and thereafterwards not providing an opportunity of bejng heard in regard to the proposed acquisition. ( 7 ) AS is apparent from the notification issued undep sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 17 of the Act, the purpose, of acquisition was to create a lay-out 'byra- sandra Thavarekere Madivala Scheme'. One fact which may be mentioned at this stage is that the lands in question are claimed to have been converted in terms of the provisions of the Karnataka land Revenue Act and diverted to non-agricultural use. In evidence of such conversion, the petitioner Company has produced Annexures D and E dt. 24th march, 1972, and 11. 4. 1973 respectively, being conversion certificates issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore district. ( 8 ) IN order to determine the, question that has arisen in this case, it is useful to reproduce; sub-sees. (1) and (5) of Sec. 17 of the Act and they are as follows:-"17. Procedure on completion of scheme. .- (1) when a development scheme. 4. 1973 respectively, being conversion certificates issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore district. ( 8 ) IN order to determine the, question that has arisen in this case, it is useful to reproduce; sub-sees. (1) and (5) of Sec. 17 of the Act and they are as follows:-"17. Procedure on completion of scheme. .- (1) when a development scheme. has been prepared, the Authority) shall draw up a notification stating the fact of a scheme having been made and the limits of the area com prised therein, and naming a place where particulars of the scheme, a map of the area comprised therein, a statement specifying the land in regard to which, a betterment tax may be levied may be seen at all reasonable hours ; (5) During the thirty days next following the day on which such notification is published in the official gazette the Authority shall serve a notice on every person whose name appears in the assessment list of the local authority or in the land revenue register as being primarily liable to pay the property tax or land reyenue assessment on any building or land which is proposed to be; acquired in executing the scheme or in regard to which the Authority proposes to recover betterment tax requiring such person to show cause within thirty days from the date of the receipt of the notice why such acquisition of the building or land and the recovery of betterment tax should not be made". From the above it is clear that the notice should be served on the owner of the property or person responsible to pay the property tax or land revenue assessment as the case may be on any building or land which has been proposed to be acquired, as is clear from the language of sub-sec. (5) of Sec. 17 of the Act. It is equally useful to notice, notice is required to be served on every person whose name appears in the assessment list of the local authority or in the land reyenue register as being primarily liable to pay the property tax or land revenue assessment in respect of the land or building sought to be acquired. ( 9 ) IT is not disputed that the notice of Annexure-A, preliminary notification, was not served on the petitioner Company. ( 9 ) IT is not disputed that the notice of Annexure-A, preliminary notification, was not served on the petitioner Company. Shri A. J. Sadashiva, learned counsel appearing for B. D. A. stated that notice was only served, as is evident, from the records, on the owners indicated in the record of rights and tenancy crop register. It has been, therefore, his argument that notice was served on the persons shown in the revenue register and therefore the petitioner now cannot make a grievance of it that it has not been served, as it did not take appropriate steps to have, its name entered in the revenue register after the purchase. In fact, the thrust of ther argument of the learned counsel for the b. D. A. is that reference to assessment list and land revenue register under sub-Sec. (5) of Sec. 17 of the Act must be construed as disjunctive giving an option to the B. D. A. to refer to either of them but not both of them. It is difficult to accede to that argument. The bangalore Development Authority being an authority created by a statute in regard to Metropolitan City, both the assessment list as well as the revenue register are referred to in the aforementioned sub-section for the simple reason that the Metropolitan area may be comprised of both agricultural and non-agricultural lands. The development of the Metropolitan City necessarily involves encroachment of the surrounding revenue lands for the development of the City. It is in that context that reference to land revenue register is made. By reason of that only, it cannot be argued that need to verify the assessment list is eliminated. More so, when there is intrinsic evidence produced by the petitioner, the lands in question had ceased to be agricultural lands as far back as 1973-74 when conversion certificates were issued to it. ( 10 ) IT was next argued by Shri sadashiva that failure to serve notice on the petitioner was entirely due to the indifference of the petitioner and therefore this Court should hold that there is substantial compliance with the requirements of sub-sec. (5) of sec. 17 of the Act in regard to the service of notice. Identical argument was advanced in the case of B. L. Somanna vs. State of Karnataka (1 ). (5) of sec. 17 of the Act in regard to the service of notice. Identical argument was advanced in the case of B. L. Somanna vs. State of Karnataka (1 ). In that case, the acquisition proceeding, that had been challenged were under the Land Acquisition Act and notice under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 4 of that Act, had been served on persons whose names had appeared in the revenue records and not on purchasers of the lands in question long prior to the issue of the notification under sub-sec. (1)of Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Bhimiah, J. , (as he then was) rejecting that contention pointed out that under the requirements of registration of a sale deed and having regard to the provisions of the Land Revenue Act concerning mutation, it was the duty of the registering authority to report the change in ownership to the prescribed authority under the Land Revenue act for effecting the, mutation. He further held that if that was not done, then the purchaser could not be penalised without affording an opportunity of being heard in the matter of acquisition for the failure of the prescribed authority or the registering authority to comply with the requirements of law. In that context, he rightly observed that right to property was a valuable right which could not be taken away from the owner of the property without affording an adequate oppotunity to make representation against such deprivation of property, though it be for a public purpose under a statute. I am unable to see any reason to disagree with that conclusion reached by the learned Judge of this court. ( 11 ) I have already mentioned that the facts in themselves are not in dispute. The petitioner has not been served with notice under sub-sec. (5) of Sec. 17 of the Act. Therefore, it was never heard or allowed to make any representation. However, Sri Sadashiva, learned counsel contended that the burden of proving that mutation fee was indeed paid by the; petitioner at the time of registration was on the petitioner itself and in the absence of such a plea or proof of such payment of the fee, the ruling of this Court in somanna's case is distinguishable. I do not think so. I do not think so. A photostat copy of the sale deed at Annexure-C to the petition indicates the fee collected by the Registrar in addition to registration fee and copying charges of the folios and the endorsement, an additional fee of Rs. 5 is collected which necessarily must be presumed to be towards the charges for intimating the prescribed authority under the Land Revenue Act to effect the mutation. Even otherwise, it is seen that Annexure-E and G produced along with the petition clearly indicate that the petitioner has paid the panchayat Extension Officer, the assessment on the lands in question for the year 1976-77. If only the 1st respondent Bangalore Development Authority had checked the assessment list, it would have found the change in the ownership of the land. Not having done that, it cannot put forward now any excuse for not complying with the mandatory requirements of sub-sec. (5) of Sep. 17 of the Act. ( 12 ) IN this case, the, final declaration under Sec. 19 of the Act in so far as the petitioner's lands are concerned is without compliance with the requirements of law and is liable; to be struck down and it is so struck down. ( 13 ) THE 1st respondent Bangalore development Authority shall now issue a fresh notice within 30 days from today to the petitioner, if they chose to do so and proceed with the acquisition of the lands in question in accordance with law. ( 14 ) RULE will accordingly issue and be made absolute. ( 15 ) IN the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .