ORDER: This writ petition is filed for the following relief: ‘to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling of the records relating to Draft Notification under Section 4(1) published in Gazette No.172, Kadapa dated 16.07.1999, the Draft Declaration under Section 6 published in Gazette No.173, Kadapa, dated 17.07.1999 and award No.11/2001-2002, dated 14.02.2002 issued and passed by the 2nd respondent herein respectively declaring the same as arbitrary, illegal, colorable exercise of power in utter contravention of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and violative of the fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed to Petitioner under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same in so far as the land (House Plots) in an extent of Ac.3.12 cents in Sy.Nos.497 of Kothapalli Village, Proddatur Town, Kadapa District under registered Sale Deed dated 26.04.1974 belonging to me and pass…. 2. This Court has heard Sri C.Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, Standing Counsel for APIIC and learned counsel for unofficial respondents. 3. During the course of hearing as the writ petitioner died, his legal representatives come on record. For the sake of convenience the ‘writ petitioner’ alone is referred though his legal heirs are on record and are now contesting the matter. 4. The grievance of the petitioner in this case which is well articulated by Sri C.Prakash Reddy is that he has acquired land measuring Ac.3.12 cents in Sy.No.497 of Kothapalli village, Proddatur Town under a registered sale deed dated 26.04.1974. The petitioner claims to be in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property even as on date of filing of the writ petition. As per the learned counsel for the petitioner, in January 2009, staff of respondent Nos.4 and 5 tried to form a road in the property. The petitioner objected to the same and thereafter it transpired that the respondents are claiming rights in the property stating that the land was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) by the State Government and handed over to the 4th respondent. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at no point of time, the petitioner received any notice whatsoever of the acquisition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at no point of time, the petitioner received any notice whatsoever of the acquisition. It is submitted categorically that the procedure stipulated under the Act was not followed and by invoking urgency clause, high handed action was taken for a large extent of land, but it is asserted that the petitioner’s land measuring Ac.3.12 cents is still in his possession and enjoyment only. Learned counsel points out that the essential averments raised by him with regard to the possession even in January, 2009 are not denied in the counter. Learned counsel submits that documents obtained under the Right to Information Act reveal that nobody has received the compensation for the land. Therefore, it is clear as per the learned counsel that no attempt was made to serve the requisite notices at every stage as warranted by the Act. He points out that the Act is expropriatory legislation and that therefore, its provisions should be very seriously viewed. It is also pointed out that K.Konda Reddy, who is the awardeee died on 08.03.2001, whereas the award was passed on 14.02.2002. This shows clear non-application of mind according to the learned counsel. He also points out that in the award itself, it is mentioned that payment would be made in the future either to the pattadar, his legal representatives or ‘the rightful owners’. This indicates clearly that the procedure was not followed by the respondents in acquiring the petitioner’s land. Learned counsel points out that even if the documents filed by the respondent-State pursuant to the order of this Court are examined, the name of the writ petitioner K.Ramasubba Reddy is visible in the publication made in the Andhra Bhoomi newspaper, in the draft notification and also in the notification under section 6 of the Act. Thereafter, in the award, he submits that the name of K.Ramasubba Reddy-writ petitioner is missing. It is pointed out that as per these notifications, including the draft notification and the draft declaration, K.Konda Reddy is shown as the pattadar and the enjoyer is shown as K.Ramasubba Reddy-the writ petitioner. Learned counsel points out that absolutely no reason is pointed out as to why notice could not be delivered to the petitioner even though his name appears in the notification/declaration. 6. Learned counsel points out that absolutely no reason is pointed out as to why notice could not be delivered to the petitioner even though his name appears in the notification/declaration. 6. In reply to the counter filed about lack of mutation in the petitioner’s name, learned counsel relies upon the judgment of Gubbala Chinna Ganga Rao and another v. Land Acquisition Officer and Rural Development Officer, Narsapur, West Godavari District and others, 2009 (1) ALD 438 . He also submits that if the Court comes to the conclusion that the procedure as stipulated including the statutory notices are not given, this Court can set aside the award. He relies upon single Judges’ judgments reported in The Class IV Employees House Building Society v. Tanuboddi Venkatappa Reddy, MANU/AP/0175/1980 and Uppalapati Krishna Murthy v. Government of A.P. and others, MANU/AP/0538/1997 in support of his contention. He also argues that even as on date, land is vacant and is in possession of the petitioner. According to him, even the plan filed by him with his additional documents shows the property as disputed property and it is vacant. Therefore, he prays for an order. 7. Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition on the other hand argues that the award was published in February 2002. The writ petition is filed seven years after the award was passed. Therefore, she submits that in view of the settled law, namely the judgments reported in State of Rajasthan & others v. D.R.Laxmi & others, 1996 (6) SCC 445 , Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. The Industrial Development & Investment Co.Pvt. Ltd., 1997 (11) SCC 501 and A.P .Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd., v. Chinthamaneni Narasimha Rao & others, 2011 (10) Scale 460 , this Court should not interfere and should dismiss the writ petition. She submits that a reading of the counter affidavit filed reveals that the petitioners and the legal representatives of the petitioner, who come on record, who are claiming to be the owners of the property did not get their names mutated in the revenue records. The draft notification is published and thereafter draft declaration was also published in the locality and in the local newspapers. Yet the writ petitioner did not file any objections. The draft notification is published and thereafter draft declaration was also published in the locality and in the local newspapers. Yet the writ petitioner did not file any objections. It is also submitted that the entire extent of land has been acquired and handed over to APIIC, who are now in possession and enjoyment of the property for the purpose of expansion of the industrial estate. It is also mentioned that notices under section 9(1) and 10 of the Act were published on 06.12.2001 and other notices were issued in the locality by erecting a pole in the land. By way of beating of drums and tom tom also publicity was given. Therefore, learned Government Pleader justifies the action taken. It is also submitted that the entire amount as per the award was deposited in the Government accounts by way of challan dated 11.05.2002. Hence, both on the ground of delay and on the ground of failure of the petitioner to mutate their names in the revenue records, the learned Government Pleader submits that the writ petition should be dismissed. 8. For APIIC learned standing counsel relies upon the counter affidavit filed and argues on similar lines. It is stated very clearly that the amount awarded has been deposited in Government accounts and that none of the claimants had raised any objections at the appropriate stage nor did they get their names mutated. The submissions of the learned standing counsel are in line with what has been argued by the learned Government Pleader. 9. As for as the respondent Nos.6 to 8 are concerned, they support the case of the petitioner. They state very clearly that the writ petitioner is the owner of the land in Sy.No.479/1B. According to this affidavit, the award is passed in the name of one K.Konda Reddy, who is their father. It is stated categorically that K.Konda Reddy has nothing to do with the said land. It is also mentioned that K.Konda Reddy died on 08.03.2001 and the award was passed long thereafter. A copy of the death certificate is also filed with the implead application I.A.No.1 of 2022 and the same is pointed out by the learned counsel. It is reiterated that the writ petitioner is the actual owner of the property. 10. It is also mentioned that K.Konda Reddy died on 08.03.2001 and the award was passed long thereafter. A copy of the death certificate is also filed with the implead application I.A.No.1 of 2022 and the same is pointed out by the learned counsel. It is reiterated that the writ petitioner is the actual owner of the property. 10. COURT: The learned Government Pleader as per the directions of this Court filed the copies of the 4 (1) notification and section 6 declaration of the Act. In the 4(1) notification published in Andhra Prabha on 24.06.1999, for land in Sy.No.479/1B the pattadar is K.Konda Reddy and the person in enjoyment is K.Ramasubba Reddy. Same publication was made in Andhra Bhoomi. In addition, the notification under section 4(1) of the Act published in the District Gazette and the declaration under section 6 (1) of the Act published in the Gazette clearly state that the person in enjoyment is K.Ramasubba Reddy (writ petitioner). However, the subsequent notices under sections 9 and 10 of the Act refer to the name of K.Konda Reddy only. 11. If the award is examined, it also refers to the 4(1) notification dated 16.07.1999 and also the draft declaration dated 17.07.1999 which clearly refer to the name of K.Ramasubba Reddy, the writ petitioner. 12. The counter affidavit filed by the State and also APIIC clearly state that the draft notification was published as per the entries in the revenue records (para 5 of the counter of respondent Nos.1 to 3). To the same effect is the counter of respondent Nos.4 and 5, wherein in para 15, it is stated that the names have been taken into account basing on the village accounts and publication of 4(1) notification. In the opinion of this Court, the fact that the name of the writ petitioner is published in the 4(1) notification, draft notification and draft declaration under 6(1) of the Act makes it clear that the respondents were aware that he is the person who is enjoying the property. These publications are based on the revenue records. Therefore, their contentions that notices could not be served because the petitioner did not mutate his names in the revenue records does not appeal to this Court and it also does not appear to be true. 13. These publications are based on the revenue records. Therefore, their contentions that notices could not be served because the petitioner did not mutate his names in the revenue records does not appeal to this Court and it also does not appear to be true. 13. A learned single Judge of this Court in a decision reported in Gubbala Chinna Ganga Rao (1 supra) clearly held as follows: 7. ‘……….The Land Acquisition officer is expected to gather information from the Sub-Registrar's office to know whether any registered sale transactions have taken place in respect of the property before the same is notified for acquisition. Thus, mere absence of mutation in revenue records does not absolve the land acquisition officer from the obligation of collecting the necessary information as to the true owner of the property at the time of issuing notification. There is, therefore, some justification for the petitioners in complaining that the land acquisition proceedings were initiated behind their back. The records also do not show that notices were served on the petitioners under Section 9(3) of the Act.’ 14. Apart from that, under section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, the registration of sale deed is also notice to the public at large (Azhar Sultana v. B.Rajamani, 2009 (17) SCC 27 ). 15. As far as the Land Acquisition Act is concerned, the Supreme Court has more than once said that it is an expropriatory legislation and therefore, it must be very strictly construed. These State actions have the potential of depriving a person of his valuable rights in the property. Therefore, it has to be very strictly construed. (Nareshbhai Bhagubhai v. Union of India, (2019) 15 SCC 1 and State of M.P. v. Vishnu Prasad Sharma, AIR 1966 SC 1593 ). The deprivation can only be by a procedure established and in accordance with law. Due care must be exercised and the law should be followed. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the Division Bench judgment of the A.P.High Court in Tanuboddi Venkatappa Reddy (2 supra), wherein the Division Bench reiterated the legal position that notice should be served on the occupier of the land and on any other person who are known to the Collector to be interested in the land or whom he ‘believes’ to be interested in the land. Even if the urgency provision under section 17 of the Act is considered, it is clear that the Collector is duty bound to publish a notice under Section 9 of the Act and within 15 days, he can take possession of the land by tendering 80% of the amount to the persons interested. 17. Section ‘9’ is headed – Notice to Persons ‘Interested’. Under section 9(1) of the Act, notice is to be published at a convenient place on or near the land to be taken. Under section 9(2) of the Act, the notice should state the particulars of the land so needed and require all persons ‘interested’ in the land to appear before the Collector. Under section 9(3) of the Act, the notice was also to be served on the occupier of such land and on all such persons known or ‘believed’ to be interested therein or to be entitled to act for persons so interested. 18. A reading of these clauses makes it clear that notice is to be given at a convenient place on or near the land to be taken. In addition, the Collector should also serve notice to the same effect on the occupier of such land and on all persons known or believed to be interested therein. Even the agents of such person are authorized to receive such notice. These sub-sections clearly underline the need for a clear notice even to persons ‘interested’. Lastly, section 9(4) of the Act says that if a person so interested resides elsewhere, and he does not have an agent, the notice shall be sent by the Collector by post to his last known address etc. Therefore, the importance of notice is more than clearly visible from a plain language interpretation of these clauses of the Act. The entire scheme of the Act if examined closely mandates a notice/objection/hearing etc., before a final award is passed. Even the emergency/urgency method of acquisition as per section 17 mandates a notice as per section 9(1) of the Act. The facts of this case reveal that the draft notification and draft declaration clearly show that K.Ramasubba Reddy-writ petitioner as the person in possession of the land. He is thus more than a person ‘interested’. The draft notification/draft declaration show that he is in occupation and this information from the revenue records only as per the counter affidavit. The facts of this case reveal that the draft notification and draft declaration clearly show that K.Ramasubba Reddy-writ petitioner as the person in possession of the land. He is thus more than a person ‘interested’. The draft notification/draft declaration show that he is in occupation and this information from the revenue records only as per the counter affidavit. Yet notice was never issued to him at any stage. 19. This Court has to follow what is mentioned in the Division Bench judgment referred to above and hold in line with para 12 of the said report that since the person in occupation and interested is not served with a notice under section 9(3) of the Act, the action is willfully perverse and the subsequent proceedings cannot be said to be bona fide. The order of the lower Court was upheld in this Bench decision. Similarly, a learned single Judge in the case of Uppalapati Krishna Murthy (3 supra) held that the notice under section 9(3) of the Act is mandatory. Thereafter, he set aside the said award also. 20. In this case also, this Court notices that in the counter affidavit filed, it is clearly stated more than once that the draft notification was published as per the entries in the revenue records. Little choice is therefore left for this Court in this case. 21. The next question that survives is, whether on account of the delay as alleged, the petitioner is dis-entitled to seek any relief in this writ ?. As far as the issue of delay is concerned, writ petitioner has come on record stating that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the land and that only in January, 2009, there was an attempt to disturb his possession when respondent Nos.4 and 5 tried to form roads. This is mentioned in para 4 and 10 of the writ affidavit. Interestingly, this averment is not denied in the counter affidavit. It is stated that thereafter he came to know that an award was passed and possession was supposedly handed over to respondent Nos.4 and 5. It is also mentioned that thereafter he applied under the Right to Information Act, but the respondents furnished certain information only and not the rest. Therefore, learned counsel submits that there is no delay per se in the filing of the writ petition. It is also mentioned that thereafter he applied under the Right to Information Act, but the respondents furnished certain information only and not the rest. Therefore, learned counsel submits that there is no delay per se in the filing of the writ petition. This submission does carry some weight and appeals to this Court. 22. This Court also notices that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vidya Devi vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. in para 12.1 (2) of this judgment, the learned Judge held that the condonation of delay in such cases is a matter of judicial discretion and that there is no period of limitation prescribed for Courts to exercise their constitutional jurisdiction to do substantial justice. In para 12.1(iii), by relying upon the earlier judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was held when the demand for justice is so compelling, the Constitutional Court would exercise its jurisdiction with a view to promote justice and not to defeat it. 23. In the case on hand, the petitioner has demonstrated that notice was never served. Hence, knowledge cannot be attributed to him. In addition, the petitioner’s assertion of being in possession even in 2009 is not denied in the counter affidavit. The lands next to industrial estate are also shown as disputed lands in the map filed by the writ petitioner. This is a copy of the lay out approved by the Director of Town and Country Planning and the disputed lands are visible. Apart from this, the award dated 14.02.2002 also states that Ac.3.31 cents in Sy.No.497/1B is registered in the name of K.Konda Reddy. Since acquisition was urgent, it was decided to proceed as per the names of the pattadars as per the records. It was decided that in future the payment may be made either to the pattadar or his legal heirs/successors or the rightful owners after thorough check up of the title eligibility as and when they come forward. In the opinion of this Court, this conclusion is totally contrary to the provisions of the Act which mandate a notice to be issued to the title holder, persons in occupation, persons interested in the land etc., at various stages. In the opinion of this Court, this conclusion is totally contrary to the provisions of the Act which mandate a notice to be issued to the title holder, persons in occupation, persons interested in the land etc., at various stages. At their will and fancy, Officers of the State cannot acquire or take over the property and state that they will deposit the money and decide the same when the claimants or aggrieved parties approach them. This Court could have condoned the action of the State if they had made all the attempts possible to serve the notices as required under law and thereafter proceeded to finalize the award. The same is not visible from the record. Even the need for invoking the urgency clause is not visible in this case. Since it is an expropriatory legislation, it has to be construed very strictly and before a property is taken over by the State, the provisions of the law should be strictly and scrupulously followed. 24. The case on hand falls woefully short of the requirements of law. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the petitioner is entitled to the relief as prayed for. 25. In view of passage of time, the following directions are passed as this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has to succeed: (a) The award No.11 dated 14.02.2002 is set aside in so far as it relates to land measuring Ac.3.31 cents in Sy.No.497/13 pertaining to the original writ petitioner. (b) Liberty is given to the respondents to pass a fresh award if they still need the writ petitioners land by scrupulously following the provisions of Act 30/2013 (new Land Acquisition Act) within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 26. The writ petition is allowed with the directions as mentioned supra in para 25. The possession of the petitioner shall not be disturbed except as per the procedure established by law. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed.