ORDER : U. Durga Prasad Rao, J. 1. W.P. No. 13439/2020 is filed by thirteen petitioners seeking a writ of mandamus challenging the notification dated 06.09.2017 issued under Section 3(1) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of user in land) Act, 1962 (for short, 'the PMP Act, 1962') in so far as it relates to the land of the petitioners is concerned as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to Section 7 of the PMP Act, 1962 and Article 21 & 300A of the Constitution of India and for consequential direction. 2. The petitioners' case succinctly is thus: (a) The petitioners are owners and possessors of different layout plots in S. No. 75 of Narava Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District within the limits of 3rd respondent Corporation having purchased under registered Sale Deeds from the original owners J. Demudu and others in the year 2016. Ever since having been in possession, they are paying property tax and obtained passbooks in the year 2016 itself. Some of the petitioners raised structures in their respective plots and obtained door numbers from 3rd respondent. The details of the plots purchased by the petitioners are as under: Sl. No. Petitioner’s name Plot No. Document No. with date Tax assessment No. 1 Ravipalli Venkata Ramana Murthy 3 1917/2016 13.04.2016 1086333461 2 Puvvala Mahendra 2 1913/2016 13.04.2016 520100/572001 3 Puvvala Ragini 1 1909/2016 13.04.2016 520100/572048 4 Nagireddy Satyaveni 3 Centre Part 3934/2016 15.07.2016 520100/572009 5 Nagireddy Sree Ramulu 3 West Part 3935/2016 15.07.2016 520100/572049 6 Paladugu Siva Nageswara Rao 4 1910/2016 13.04.2016 520100/572005 7 Balivada Devi Prasad Patro A 1908/2016 13.04.2016 520100/572008 8 Balivada Ramalingeswara Laxmi Narayana Patro B & C 1912/2016 1916/2016 13.04.2016 520100/572010 520100/572004 9 Yellumahanti Venkata Ramana D 1907/2016 13.04.2016 520100/572000 10 Kuppili Vijaya Kumar E 1914/2016 13.04.2016 520100/572002 11 Ippili Venkata Guru Ramprasad F 1906/2016 13.04.2016 520100/571999 12 Lumburu Harsha Vardhan G 1905/2016 13.04.2016 520100/572006 13 Gorla Raj Kishore H 1911/2016 13.04.2016 520100/572007 (b) While so, in the last week of June 2020 the officials of 2nd respondent started visiting the plots of the petitioners and informed that they come to give markings to lay pipeline called Paradeep - Hyderabad Pipeline running through the plots of the petitioners. When the petitioners expressed their ignorance about the proposal of the respondents, they stated that a notification has already been issued in the year 2017. When the petitioners expressed their ignorance about the proposal of the respondents, they stated that a notification has already been issued in the year 2017. On enquiry, the petitioners found that the 2nd respondent issued a Gazette Notification dated 06.09.2017 under Section 3(1) of the PMP Act, 1962 and thereafter issued a declaration dated 28.03.2019 under Section 6(1) of the said Act, which, however, does not include the land of the petitioners in Narava Village. Hence, the proposal of 2nd respondent to use the plots of the petitioners for laying pipeline and road is contrary to law and the notification dated 06.09.2017 is liable to be set aside. The petitioners challenged the notification inter alia on the grounds that due procedure as laid down under PMP Act, 1962 was not followed and no notice was issued to petitioners calling for their objections. They further contended that as per Section 7 of the PMP Act, 1962, no pipeline shall be laid under any land which, immediately before the notification under Section 3(1), was used for residential purpose as in the instant case. The petitioners also contended that abutting the survey No. 75, land covered by survey No. 74 & 77 is existing, which is a government land which can be conveniently used for laying pipeline. Thus, the respondent authorities prepared themselves to lay pipeline without following due process of law and hence, the notification dated 06.09.2017 is liable to be set aside. Hence, the writ petition. 3. With the same averments W.P. No. 14713/2020 came to be filed by two more petitioners, who have purchased plots in S. No. 75 of Narava Village. Hence, both the writ petitions are decided by this common order. 4. As per the implead petitions filed by the petitioners in both the Writ Petitions, the Union of India, represented by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, has been added as 4th respondent. 5. The 2nd respondent filed identical counters in both the writ petitions denying the averments in the writ petitions and inter alia contending as follows: (a) The writ petition is not maintainable for non-impleading of the Government of India as a party respondent. 5. The 2nd respondent filed identical counters in both the writ petitions denying the averments in the writ petitions and inter alia contending as follows: (a) The writ petition is not maintainable for non-impleading of the Government of India as a party respondent. (b) Section 3(1) notification has subsequently been culminated in Section 6(1) Gazette notification vide S.O. No. 920 dated 28.05.2019 which bestowed the right of use on 2nd respondent and since the Gazette notification under Section 6(2) has not been impugned, the writ petition is not maintainable. (c) The underground pipeline project called "Paradeep-Hyderabad Pipeline Project" which covers a distance of 1200 kilometres at the cost of Rs. 3800 crores is at the fag end of the completion. (d) Denying the averments of the petitioners that their land was classified as residential plots and some constructions were raised therein much prior to Section 3(1) Gazette notification, it is contended, after issuance of the said notification, the petitioners failed to submit any objections within the stipulated time of 21 days to the competent authority. However, subsequently they raised the structures on the lands as an after thought in the last week of July, 2020 after the respondent Corporation attempted to serve notice under Section 6(1) dated 25.06.2020 on Sri J. Demudu. Hence, the contention of the petitioners is untenable. (e) The respondent Corporation followed the procedure contemplated under the relevant provisions of the PMP Act, 1962. The contention of the petitioners that notice was not issued to them or their vendor is not correct. As per the revenue records, Sri J. Demudu was shown as Pattadar of the land in S. No. 75 of Narava Village and therefore, Section 3 notice dated 23.11.2017 was sought to be served on him, but he refused. Hence, the notice was displayed in all the relevant Government offices as prescribed under the PMP Act, 1962. So also the notice dated 25.06.2020 issued under Section 6(1) of the Act was also refused by J. Demudu stating that he sold away the land but did not inform about purchasers. Hence, notice was deemed to be served on the real owner. Due to his refusal the notices as well as Gazette notifications were affixed to the Government offices at the Village, Mandal, Tahsil level as well as Collectorate, Visakhapatnam. Hence, notice was deemed to be served on the real owner. Due to his refusal the notices as well as Gazette notifications were affixed to the Government offices at the Village, Mandal, Tahsil level as well as Collectorate, Visakhapatnam. Further, the respondents ensured that the Gazette notification was publicized by beat of drum in the neighbourhood of the land and a Dandora report as contemplated under the PMP Act, 1962 was made. Thus, the necessary procedure has been followed. (f) In Section 6(1) Gazette notification issued vide S.O. No. 920 dated 20.05.2009, the petitioners' land in S. No. 75 of Narava village was very much mentioned. The petitioners did not challenge the said notification. Hence, the writ petition is not maintainable. (g) The respondent Corporation has no intention to lay any road through the petitioners' land as alleged, but intents to use the said land only for laying the pipeline. (h) The contention of the petitioners that the proposal for laying pipeline was made without proper enquiry and consultation of revenue authorities is not correct. The government land in S. Nos. 74 & 77 is also being utilized for laying the pipeline. (i) The petitioners having ignored as an after thought made small constructions in the land from 25.07.2020 onwards to make a wrongful claim that there were dwelling houses in their plots even before Section 3(1) notification. The contention of the petitioners that the process of laying pipeline is arbitrary is incorrect. At any rate the structures constructed do not fall in the vicinity of the pipeline and they are nearly 50 feet away from the proposed pipeline and the same are not a hindrance to the pipeline. The petition averments are malafide with an intention to get enhanced compensation. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed. 6. The petitioners filed reply affidavit opposing the counter averments. (a) It is contended that the deponent of the counter affidavit is the General Manager, but not the competent authority and so he has no right to file counter. (b) The petitioners made an application dated 06.07.2020 under R.T.I. Act to 2nd respondent seeking all details and documents regarding acquisition proceedings, but till now no documents are furnished. Hence, they could not question the declaration under Section 6. Since the main notification under Section 3 has already been impugned, non-challenging of consequential declaration under Section 6 does not impair the writ petition. Hence, they could not question the declaration under Section 6. Since the main notification under Section 3 has already been impugned, non-challenging of consequential declaration under Section 6 does not impair the writ petition. (c) The subject area falls under Ward No. 57 of GVMC. Hence, the same is classified as residential area. The contrary plea is incorrect. The vacant land tax is levelled on open residential plots and not on agricultural lands by the municipal authorities and accordingly, the 3rd respondent has assessed the plots of the petitioners to the vacant land tax in the year 2016 itself. The 1st petitioner made construction in the year 2016 and the 3rd respondent imposed property tax. Hence, the plea that structures were hurriedly raised in July, 2020 is incorrect. The registration authorities also showed the plots in S. No. 75 as residential plots and valued at Rs. 7000/- per square yard. (d) The revenue records pertaining to subject land continued to show the name of the vendor of the petitioners as the same is not updated subsequent to the sale of plots. The factum of non-mutation is of no avail to the respondents. They being authorities to acquire the property, are bound to enquire and ascertain the particulars of real owners of the property and also the classification of the land. The allegation that notices under Section 3 and 6 were sought to be served on the vendor of the petitioners is incorrect in view of the affidavit given by him. The notices were fabricated to suit the counter affidavit. The publication of notice through Dandora is also not correct. (e) Though in the counter it was averred that the Government land in S. Nos. 74 & 77 were also utilized, such user is minimum one i.e., Ac. 0.07 cents and Ac. 0.14 cents respectively in spite of the fact that vast extent of Ac. 3.59 cents is available. No due process was followed evidently. The contention that the structures were raised subsequently is not correct. 7. The other respondents did not file counters. 8. 74 & 77 were also utilized, such user is minimum one i.e., Ac. 0.07 cents and Ac. 0.14 cents respectively in spite of the fact that vast extent of Ac. 3.59 cents is available. No due process was followed evidently. The contention that the structures were raised subsequently is not correct. 7. The other respondents did not file counters. 8. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners Sri M.S.R. Chandramurthy in W.P. No. 13439 of 2020 and Sri G. Vivekanand in W.P. No. 14713 of 2020 and Sri Ashok Ram V, learned standing counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, Sri S. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, learned standing counsel for respondent No. 3, and Sri N. Harinath, learned Assistant Solicitor General for respondent No. 4. 9. Severely expostulating the Section 3(1) notification, dated 06.09.2017, concerning to the plots and houses of the petitioners, learned counsel for petitioners argued firstly that the said notification and the consequential notification issued under Section 6 are legally unsustainable for the reason of non-issuance of notices to the petitioners, who are the owners of respective plots and houses. In expatiation he would submit, as per Rule 3 of Petroleum Rules, 1963, the respondent authorities shall publish the substance of the notification by way of beat of drum, affix copy of the notification in a conspicuous place in the locality in which the subject land is situated and further, a copy of notification shall be served on the owner or the person interested in such land by registered post with acknowledgment due in terms of Rule 8. He would staunchly argue that the aforesaid procedure was not religiously followed by the authorities. (a) Nextly, he argued that the original owners of the land in S. No. 75 namely J. Demudu and others have sold the said land by converting into house plots to the petitioners in the year 2016 itself and some of the petitioners have constructed houses and the others are making preparations in that regard and they are paying vacant land tax to the 3rd respondent corporation since all those plots fall under Ward No. 57 of GVMC. Since admittedly, the notification under Section 3(1) of the PMP Act, 1962 was issued subsequently on 06.09.2017, the respondent authorities are prohibited from laying pipeline beneath or within the vicinity of their plots and houses in view of the embargo created under Section 7 of the PMP Act, 1962. (b) Learned counsel further argued that the properties of the petitioners are covered by Survey No. 75 of Narava Village and the said survey number is not mentioned in Section 6 notification. In fact, none of the properties in Narava Village were mentioned in the said notification. Therefore, the respondents cannot lay any pipeline through the petitioners' properties. (c) Learned counsel finally argued that on either side of Survey No. 75, government land and Gadda Poramboke are situated in Survey Nos. 74 and 77 and hence, the respondent corporation can utilise the Government land for laying pipelines leaving the plots of the petitioners. 10. Sri G. Vivekanand, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. No. 14713/2020 adopted the arguments of Sri M. Srirama Chandra Murthy. 11. Per contra, Sri V. Ashok Ram, Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 & 2 firstly argued that the contention of the petitioners that the properties covered by Survey No. 75 of Narava Village do not find place in Section 6(1) notification is wrong. To that effect, he filed copy of the Gazette notification dated 28.05.2019. (a) Nextly, he argued that notice under Rule 3(3) r/w Section 3 of the PMP Act, 1962 was issued on J. Demudu who, as per revenue records, is the original owner of the land covered by Survey No. 75, but he refused to receive the notice for the reasons best known to him. He further submitted that Section 6 notification was also attempted to be served on Demudu, but he refused to receive on the ground that he already sold his lands to some third-parties but did not furnish the particulars of the purchasers. He thus argued that it is preposterous for petitioners to contend that no statutory notices were issued to them. He further submitted that Section 6 notification was also attempted to be served on Demudu, but he refused to receive on the ground that he already sold his lands to some third-parties but did not furnish the particulars of the purchasers. He thus argued that it is preposterous for petitioners to contend that no statutory notices were issued to them. (b) Nextly, denying the contention that the land covered by Survey No. 75 was converted into house plots and some of the petitioners have already constructed houses long prior to Section 3(1) notification, learned Standing Counsel argued that the land in Survey No. 75 is an agricultural land and some of the petitioners have hurriedly constructed houses after issuance of Gazette notification under Section 3(1) and therefore, the embargo under Section 7 has no application. (c) Finally, he argued that the Government land in Survey Nos. 74 & 77 is also being utilized for laying the pipeline and hence, the petitioners cannot express any grievance. Learned Standing Counsel thus formidably argued that due process of law was meticulously followed and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 12. The point for consideration is whether the notification dated 06.09.2017 issued under Section 3(1) of the PMP Act, 1962 by the 4th respondent is liable to be set aside for non-following of provisions of the aforesaid Act and the Rules thereunder? 13. Point: Like the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of user in land) Act, 1962 is also in a way, an expropriatory law. However, the difference between these two enactments is that while under the Land Acquisition Act, along with the property the title and ownership of the concerned owner will be acquired by the Government, under the PMP Act, 1962, only right in user of the land will be acquired, but the title and ownership of the owner will not be divested. This is the basic difference between the two enactments. As it is contended by petitioners that the respondents have not scrupulously followed the provisions of the PMP Act, 1962 the scheme of the Act and relevant provisions thereof need to be examined. 14. The PMP Act was brought forth with the main object of transporting the petroleum and minerals through pipelines to different localities. As it is contended by petitioners that the respondents have not scrupulously followed the provisions of the PMP Act, 1962 the scheme of the Act and relevant provisions thereof need to be examined. 14. The PMP Act was brought forth with the main object of transporting the petroleum and minerals through pipelines to different localities. The objects and reasons of the Act would depict that as a result of implementation of plans for development of petroleum resources in the country, it is anticipated that in the future there will be substantial increase in the production of crude oil, natural gas and petroleum products by the public sector oil fields and refineries in India. It has, therefore become necessary to lay petroleum pipelines in the country to serve as a cheap means of transportation and distribution of petroleum and its products. The Government thought that although land could be acquired outright for laying such pipelines under Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the procedure for such acquisition is long drawn and costly. Further, since the pipelines will be laid in subsoil, outright acquisition was considered not essential, rather it would be sufficient to acquire mere right of user in the land for laying and maintaining the pipelines. 15. Section 1 of the PMP Act, 1962 lays down that at the first instance the Act was made applicable to West Bengal, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat and the Union Territory of Delhi and later by virtue of notification in SO. 987 dated 10.03.1964 Gazette of India Pt. II, it was made applicable to the States of Orissa, Andhra Pradesh and Madras with effect from 15.03.1964. Thus, there is no demur that the subject Act is applicable to the State of Andhra Pradesh. (a) Section 2 deals with the definitions of some of the relevant provisions. (b) Section 3 deals with the publication of notification for acquisition. It primarily deals with the issuance of notification by the Central Government declaring its intention to acquire the right of user in respect of any land under which it intends to lay pipeline for transport of petroleum or any mineral from one locality to another locality. The pipelines may be laid by the Central Government or by the State Government or a Corporation. The pipelines may be laid by the Central Government or by the State Government or a Corporation. Sub-section (2) says that every notification under sub-section (1) shall give a brief description of the land whereas sub-section (3) lays down that the competent authority shall cause the substance of the notification to be published at such places in such manner as may be prescribed. (c) Under Section 4 it is lawful for any authorised person to enter upon and cause survey in respect of such land. (d) Under Section 5, any person interested in the land can object to the laying of pipelines under his land. The objections so preferred are to be dealt with by the Competent authority, who would then make a report for the decision of the Central Government. (e) Then, Section 6 says, if the Central Government is satisfied that the land is required for laying any pipeline for transport of petroleum or any mineral, it may declare so by notification in the official gazette, whereafter the right of user shall vest absolutely in the Central Government or the State Government or the Corporation as directed. After vesting of right to user, it is lawful for the authorities to lay pipelines, however, by following the exceptions mentioned in Section 7. (f) Section 9 imposes certain restrictions on the use of the land by the owner, after a declaration has been made under Section 6 (1). (g) Section 10 lays down principles for award of compensation against the acquisition of right of user of the land and also in respect of any damage or loss sustained by any person interested in the land. 16. At this juncture, it is apposite to peruse some of the Rules of the Petroleum & Mineral Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of user in land) Rules, 1963 (for short, 'the Rules, 1963') which are intertwined with Section 3. While under Section 3(3) the competent authority shall cause the substance of the notification to be published, Rule 3 prescribes such procedure for publication of notification. (a) Rule 3(2) lays down that the substance of the notification shall be published: (i) by beat of drum in the neighbourhood of the land in which the right of user is acquired; and (ii) by affixing a copy thereof in a conspicuous place in the locality in which the land is situated. (a) Rule 3(2) lays down that the substance of the notification shall be published: (i) by beat of drum in the neighbourhood of the land in which the right of user is acquired; and (ii) by affixing a copy thereof in a conspicuous place in the locality in which the land is situated. (b) Further, sub-rule (3) lays down that copy of such notification shall be served in the manner prescribed in Rule 8, on the owner of the land whose name is shown in the relevant revenue records or on the person, who, in the opinion of the competent authority is the owner of or interested in such land. (c) Then Rule 8 postulates that any notice or letter issued or order passed may be served on the person for whom it is intended or to any adult member of his family by sending it by registered post acknowledgment due. The serving officer shall require the signature of the person to whom the copy is so delivered to an acknowledgment of service endorsed on the original. (d) Thus a conjunctive study of Section 3 and Rules 3 and 8 tells us that the copy of notification issued under Section 3(1) should be served on the owner or the person interested in the land acquired for right to user. The above are the relevant provisions of the PMP Act, 1962 and Rules. 17. In Laljibhai Kadvabhai Savaliya and Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. : AIR 2016 SC 4715 , (2016) 9 SCC 791 the validity of provisions of PMP Act, 1962 were in challenge before the Apex Court. It was contended: (i) Though under the PMP Act, 1962, right of user simpliciter was acquired in respect of notified lands, however, practically, the owner stands deprived of their proprietary interest and enjoyment in the land, as Section 9 freezes the right to make any constructions therein. Hence, the acquisition of right of user is nothing but acquisition of the property itself. (ii) In the name of acquisition of right of user, the PMP Act, 1962 bypasses the due process of law contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1984. (iii) The expression "Corporation" appearing in Section 2(b) ought to be construed to confine to public sector corporations and the PMP Act, 1962 not to be invoked in favour of private companies. (ii) In the name of acquisition of right of user, the PMP Act, 1962 bypasses the due process of law contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1984. (iii) The expression "Corporation" appearing in Section 2(b) ought to be construed to confine to public sector corporations and the PMP Act, 1962 not to be invoked in favour of private companies. (iv) No qualifications were prescribed for the competent authority who is vested with important functions, like hearing of objections, making report to the Central Government and determining the quantum of compensation at the first instance, unlike in the pari materia enactments. (v) The Act or Rules did not prescribe the period within which compensation and damages to be deposited or paid and no guidelines were laid down that the pipelines should be laid in such a way as to cause least amount of damage or loss to the occupiers. 18. The Apex Court, considering the provisions of the Act, has observed that what is acquired is the right of user in the land in question for laying pipelines in the subsoil and not the land itself. On perusal of Section 7, the Apex Court observed that only those lands which are either lying fallow or are being put to agricultural use can be considered for acquisition but not those lands which, immediately before the date of notification under Section 3(1), were used for residential purposes or those on which there is a permanent structure in existence or those which are appurtenant to a dwelling house. Referring to Section 9, the Apex Court observed that except making any constructions after issuance of Section 6(1) notification, the owner can use the land for the same purpose for which it was earlier being used. The Apex Court thus concluded that what is taken over is only right of user i.e., to lay pipelines in the subsoil of the land in question but neither the ownership in the land nor the right of occupation or possession is taken away permanently. The Apex Court described the PMP Act, 1962 as a special enactment designed to achieve the purpose of laying pipeline as an efficient means of transportation and with that idea, only right of user in the land is acquired. The Apex Court described the PMP Act, 1962 as a special enactment designed to achieve the purpose of laying pipeline as an efficient means of transportation and with that idea, only right of user in the land is acquired. (a) The Apex Court observed, though no time limit is prescribed for deposit of compensation and damages, it is expected of the concerned authorities to determine and deposit compensation within reasonable time. It was further observed, the definition "Corporation" was wide enough to take within its sweep, entities in private sector as well. Regarding Competent authority, the Apex Court expressed its view that the said Authority must be someone who is holding or held a judicial office not lower in rank than that of a subordinate Judge or is a trained legal mind. 19. From the above jurisprudence, it is obvious that the right of user sought to be taken over under the provisions of the PMP Act, 1962 amounts to acquisition of one of the facets of the property rights which in her in the owner/occupier and such acquisition of right of user should be compensated under Section 10 of the PMP Act, 1962. It is important to know, upon the publication of the declaration of notification under Section 6, the right of user in the land for laying pipelines shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. Thus, vesting of right of user is proclaimed in clear terms. The authorities shall invariably follow the provisions of the PMP Act, 1962 scrupulously and meticulously since the valuable right of the public in their respective properties is involved. Therefore, it has now to be seen whether the provisions of the Act were followed in letter and spirit in acquiring the right of user. 20. Referring to Section 6(1) notification dated 28.03.2019, the petitioners primarily argued that the properties covered by Sy. No. 75 of Narava Village were not mentioned in the said notification and hence, the process of acquisition crumbles down. The copy of notification in SO No. 494 dated 28.03.2019 issued by the Central Government filed by the petitioners would no doubt apparently buttress the argument of the petitioners. However, the respondents along with counter filed another notification No. 920 dated 28.05.2019 issued by the Central Government under Section 6(1) of the PMP Act, 1962 which covers the landed property in Sy. However, the respondents along with counter filed another notification No. 920 dated 28.05.2019 issued by the Central Government under Section 6(1) of the PMP Act, 1962 which covers the landed property in Sy. No. 75 of Narava Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. It should be noted that under Section 6 of the Act, the Central Government is empowered to issue different declarations from time to time in respect of different parcels of the land described in the notification issued under Section 3(1) of the Act. Probably, exercising the said power, different notifications under Section 6(1) might be issued by the Central Government in respect of different properties in Visakhapatnam District. That is why, in the notification No. 494 dated 28.03.2019 filed by the petitioners, the land in Sy. No. 75 of Narava Village was not covered, but in the subsequent notification No. 920 dated 28.05.2019 the said land was included. Hence, I find no force in the contention of the petitioners in this regard. 21. The second contention of the petitioners is that copies of neither the first notification under Section 3(1) nor the second notification under Section 6(1) were served on the petitioners and hence they were deprived of an opportunity to put forth their objections under Section 5 of the Act before the Competent Authority submitting that long prior to Section 3(1) notification, the subject land was divided into plots and sold to the petitioners and some of them constructed houses thereon and hence the acquisition of their plots is prohibited under Section 7 of the Act. Refuting the same, the contention of the respondents is that Section 3(1) and Section 6(1) notifications were sent to Jerripotula Demudu who is the owner of the land in Sy. No. 75 as per revenue records, but he refused to receive. Hence, the procedure was scrupulously followed and the respondents cannot be found fault. The return endorsements are filed along with the counter. 22. As already discussed supra, Rule 3 r/w Rule 8 deals with the mode of publication of notification issued under Section 3. Publication is concerned, this rule says that it should be effected by (1) beat of drum in the neighbourhood of the concerned land, and (2) by affixing a copy thereof in a conspicuous place in the locality in which this land is situated. Publication is concerned, this rule says that it should be effected by (1) beat of drum in the neighbourhood of the concerned land, and (2) by affixing a copy thereof in a conspicuous place in the locality in which this land is situated. Besides the aforesaid mode of publication, the authorities shall serve copy of notification to the person who is shown as owner of the land in the relevant revenue records as on the date of 3(1) notification or the person interested. The contention of the respondents is that since the name of Demudu is shown in the revenue records, notices were sent to him. A copy of the pattadar adangal filed by the respondents shows the name of J. Demudu as owner of Acs. 2.45 cents of land in Sy. No. 75 of Narava Village. Then a perusal of returned notice dated 23.11.2017 shows that the respondents sent copy of notification under Section 3(1) to J. Demudu. It contains an endorsement in Telugu that the addressee refused to receive the notice and the reasons were not known. Similarly, the returned notice dated 25.06.2020 shows that the copy of notification under Section 6(1) sent to J. Demudu was also returned with an endorsement in Telugu that he refused to receive the notice on the ground that he sold away his land to third parties, but he did not furnish the particulars of purchasers. 23. Now, the crucial question is, whether the respondents can claim to have scrupulously followed the procedure contemplated in the Act and the Rules in serving notices to the petitioners who were the real owners. It should be noted that the petitioners filed copies of the registered sale deeds of some of the petitioners which show that J. Demudu sold his land in Sy. No. 75 to them under different registered sale deeds dated 13.04.2016 by converting them into residential plots. Evidently, those sale deeds were executed long prior to Section 3(1) notification dated 06.09.2017. Besides, the petitioners produced copies of tax receipts to show that vacant land tax is levied to their plots by the 3rd respondent corporation, as their plots are covered by Ward No. 57. (a) The respondents at the first instance, having regard to the entries in the revenue records, might have issued notice relating to Section 3(1) notification to J. Demudu treating him as owner of the land in Sy. (a) The respondents at the first instance, having regard to the entries in the revenue records, might have issued notice relating to Section 3(1) notification to J. Demudu treating him as owner of the land in Sy. No. 75 and he might have refused obviously, because he already sold his land to the petitioners. To this extent, the respondents may claim to be flawless. However, when the notice relating to Section 6(1) notification was also returned with the endorsement that J. Demudu refused the notice on the ground that he already sold his land to third parties, in the considered view of this Court, the respondent authorities cannot remain silent with complacency. It should be noted that the PMP Rules were framed long back in 1963, as per which notice is to be served on the person whose name is shown in the revenue records as the owner of the land. In the span of 60 years, drastic economic and ecological changes took place; the cost of manure and fertilizers increased; vagaries of the nature also contributed and thereby most of the agriculturists in the country realized that agriculture is no more a viable occupation to secure even the cost of investment. It is not uncommon that many agriculturists sold their lands to the realtors for development and construction activities. After alienating the lands, naturally the owner will not take interest in effecting mutation in the concerned revenue records. Since the purpose is not for agriculture, the purchaser also generally will not bother to mutate his name in the concerned revenue records. He will only apply to the concerned local authorities for approval of the layouts to undertake the construction activities. Hence, while the revenue records still show the name of original owner, the fact will be otherwise. In such scenario, the Competent authority who causes service of notifications under Sections 3(1) and 6(1) has the responsibility to find out the real owner when the person whose name is found in the revenue records refuses to take notice or informed that he already alienated his land to third-parties. In the instant case, it may be that the addressee did not give the details of his purchasers. However, that is not the end of the matter. In the instant case, it may be that the addressee did not give the details of his purchasers. However, that is not the end of the matter. The respondents, who seek to acquire the lands for right of user, shall exhibit due diligence to find out the real owners of the subject land. This would not have been a uphill task, had prudent efforts been made. Either the respondents could issue a legal notice to J. Demudu to furnish the particulars of the purchasers or apply to the concerned Sub Registrar for issuance of encumbrance certificate relating to the property covered by Sy. No. 75 of Narava Village. Either of these would have fetched the information relating to the real owners of the land in Sy. No. 75. Due to their inaction in the right direction, the valuable right of the petitioners is jeopardised. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, interest of justice requires that the notification dated 28.05.2019 issued under Section 6(1) of the PMP Act, 1962 so far as it relates to the properties of the petitioners covered by S. No. 75 of Narava Village has to be set aside while maintaining the notification dated 06.09.2017 issued under Section 3(1) of the PMP Act, 1962 and the Competent authority shall be directed to hear the objections of the petitioners and pass an appropriate order on merits in accordance with the governing law and Rules expeditiously. It is true that the petitioners only challenged the notification under Section 3(1) but not the notification under Section 6(1) of the PMP Act, 1962. However, considering the peculiar facts relating to this case and also the submission of the petitioners that notification under Section 6(1) is only a consequential one to the main notification under Section 3(1) of the Act, necessary direction can be issued. 24. However, considering the peculiar facts relating to this case and also the submission of the petitioners that notification under Section 6(1) is only a consequential one to the main notification under Section 3(1) of the Act, necessary direction can be issued. 24. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are partly allowed and the notification dated 28.05.2019 issued under Section 6(1) of the PMP Act, 1962 so far as it relates to the properties of the petitioners covered by S. No. 75 of Narava Village is set aside while maintaining the notification dated 06.09.2017 issued under Section 3(1), and the Competent authority is directed to issue notice to the petitioners in these writ petitions and afford an opportunity of personal hearing to their objections and pass an appropriate order on merits in accordance with the governing law and Rules expeditiously. Till such exercise is completed, the respondent authorities shall not meddle with the properties of the petitioners. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.