But, in the instant case, it appears that, Respondent No.4 allegedly issued notice to the petitioner on the representation made by Respondent No.5. But, the requirement is to give intimation about acquisition of the property by way of purchase and no such intimation was given except representation, which is permitted under law. Only when such intimation is given under Section 4 of the Act, Respondent No.4 is required to issue Notice as per Section 3 of the Act in Form-VIII under Rule 19 (1) & (2) read with Rule 5(2)(a) to (e) of the Rules. But no such procedure appears to be complied with, as per the material placed on record. Though Respondent Nos.4 & 5 contended that the notice tendered to the petitioner was refused and thereupon, Respondent No.4 affixed notice to the pole erected at the subject property. But, no notice is placed on record to find out whether it is in compliance of Rule 19(1) & (2) of the Act issued under Form-VIII issued under Section 5(3) of the Act. In the absence of such notice, it is difficult for this Court to believe that a notice, as mandated under Rule 19(1) in Form-VIII was issued and no enquiry is conducted. Therefore, mutation of the name by Respondent No.5 in the revenue records is without complying the procedural prescription under Section 5(3) of the Act and Rule 19 (1) & (2) read with Rule 5(2)(a) to (e) of the Rules, as illegal and arbitrary, in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Chinnam Pandurangam vs. Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally Mandal (referred supra).
