JUDGMENT BRISHKETU SARAN SINHA, J. 1. The four petitioners are brothers and their prayer in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution is to quash annexure 1, 3 & 6 appended to the application on the ground of being ultra vires, void and illegal. Annexure 1 is a notification dated the 14th February 1963, under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) specifying therein the lands to be acquired. All these lands, it may be stated, are in a village known as Muri within Silli Police Station of the district of Ranchi and are adjacent to tile Muri Junction Railway station. Annexure 3 is a declaration under section 6 of the Act, with regard to the aforesaid lands and annexure 6 is a notice issued under section 12 of the Act, served on petitioner no. 1 Fakir Chand Bhattacharjee. The area of the lands to be acquired is 3.755 acres. 2. According to the petitioners, the acquisition proceedings relate to R. S. plot no. 728 which has an area of 1.60 acres and other block of lands. Plot no. 728 has on it certain vacant lands, a house and a cinema hall. The petitioners were not aware of the notification under section 4 of the Act, a copy of which is annexure 1 nor was it, according to them, hung at a convenient place in the locality of the proposed acquisition. However the petitioners came to learn about this acquisition and appealed to the Divisional Superintendent South Eastern Railways, Adra, to desist from the proposal of construction of goods shed and railway siding on the site to be acquired. It may be mentioned here that the acquisition was being made at the instance of the Railways for expanding the Muri Railway station. Together with this request to the Railway Authorities, the petitioners also submitted their objection. According to the petitioners, without considering the objection, the declaration under section 6 dated the 11th June, 1963, was published in the Bihar Gazette on 17th July, 1963 a copy of which, as I have said above, is annexure 3. In their letter written to the Railways against the proposed acquisition, the petitioners had pointed out various hardships that they would suffer. In their letter written to the Railways against the proposed acquisition, the petitioners had pointed out various hardships that they would suffer. It seems that thereafter, whether on consideration of the petitioner representation or other consideration, the Railway Authorities wrote to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, on the 28th December, 1963, that they would send a revised plan for acquiring lands relating to the remodeling and the construction of the good shed at the Muri Junction Station copy of this letter is annexure 5. 3. The petitioners have asserted that without giving an opportunity to the petitioners to Jay objection against the proposed acquisition, the land acquisition proceeding were pursued but till April, 1968, an award even under section 11 of the Act, was made. When notice under section 11 was served on the petitioners, on 3rd October, 1963 the petitioners objected to it on the ground that their application under section 5 A of the Act, filed very much earlier, i.e. on the 28th August, 1963, had not been disposed of. According to the petitioners, in view of annexure 5, the letter written by the Railway Authorities to the Deputy Commissioner. It was incumbent upon the Land Acquisition Authorities to have dropped the land acquisition proceedings initiated in the year 1963 and should have acted in terms of section 48 of the Act. Some grievance in the application has also been made about no provision having been made in the acquisition case with regard to compensation which the petitioners were entitled as a certain wall of tile cinema house had been broken and damaged. Reference has been made in the application to the amount of compensation that has been determined for payment to the petitioners and also the low rate of compensation for the lands acquired. 4. It is further asserted that all of a sudden on the 28th April, 1972, respondent no. 1 along with respondent no. 3 and accompanied with six armed constables came upon the lands concerned and wanted to take forcible possession and on that very date petitioner no 1 was coerced to write a letter to the authorities concerned informing that they were handing over possession of a part of plot no. 1 along with respondent no. 3 and accompanied with six armed constables came upon the lands concerned and wanted to take forcible possession and on that very date petitioner no 1 was coerced to write a letter to the authorities concerned informing that they were handing over possession of a part of plot no. 728 and were retaining possession of that part on which their residential house was standing and that they would vacate it when they made alternative arrangements a copy of this letter is annexure 8. The petitioners have further asserted that they have not delivered possession of the lands under acquisition and are in their possession. 5. In support of this application, Mr. Basudeva Prasad bas urged that the whole land acquisition proceeding has got to be set aside inasmuch as the initiation of the proceeding under section 4 of the Act, is itself void. Submission is that the notification under section 4 does not conform to the requirements as provided in that section, the consequence of which is that all proceedings subsequently undertaken in pursuance of that notification cannot be sustained. The second submission of learned counsel is that in any view, once the Railway Authorities, in December. 1963, had informed the Deputy Commissioner that they were submitting a revised plan in which their requirements would be very much less than what was in the original notification under section 4, the Deputy Commissioner was not justified in pursuing the same proceeding and should have acted instead under section 48 of the Act. 6. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondent no. 1 i.e. the State of Bihar and on behalf of respondents no. 2 and 3, the rail way authorities. According to the State (respondent no. 1), the notification under section 4 for the acquisition of the lands copy of which is annexure 1, conforms to the requirements of section 4 and it cannot be said that the notification is bad. It is their further case that the notification under section 4, being in conformity with the requirements of the Act, all subsequent proceedings taken thereunder cannot be quashed. Their further case is that the objection filed by the petitioners under section 5 A of the Act, having been filed beyond the period prescribed, has rightly been rejected by the authorities concerned. Their further case is that the objection filed by the petitioners under section 5 A of the Act, having been filed beyond the period prescribed, has rightly been rejected by the authorities concerned. It has further been asserted that the declaration under section 6 was made only when no objections were filed within the time as prescribed and thereafter, notices have been served on the petitioners at various stages of the proceedings and that they have appeared and any objection taken by them which needed to be considered by the authorities concerned has been considered. On a consideration of all the materials the compensation to be awarded to the petitioners has already been determined the compensation amount withdrawn from the treasury for payment to the petitioners and the authorities concerned are ready and willing to make the payment. It is further stated that armed force was deputed to take possession on 28th April, 1972, as the petitioners were resisting handing over possession. It has further been asserted that all the lands as mentioned in the declaration have been taken possession of and delivered to the Railway Authorities, who are in possession thereof. 7. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Rail grays is substantially to the same effect as that of respondent no. 1 the State of Bihar. 8. The first question that falls for determination in this case is whether the notification made under section 4 of the Act, was published in a manner which conforms to the requirements of that section. 1 the State of Bihar. 8. The first question that falls for determination in this case is whether the notification made under section 4 of the Act, was published in a manner which conforms to the requirements of that section. Sub-Section (1) of section 4, as amended by Bihar Act, 11 of 1961 reads thus:– "Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government or the Collector that land in any locality is likely to be needed for any public purpose, a notification to that effect shall be published at the office of the Collector, at the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, at the office of the smallest revenue administrative unit and Gram Panchayat, if any, constituted under the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, (Bihar Act, VII of 1948) and at some conspicuous place in the village in which the land is situated and the Collector shall cause copies of the notification to be served on all persons known or believed to be interested In the land." The aforesaid provision makes it absolutely clear that one of the requirements of this provision is that the notification should be hung at some conspicuous place in the village in which the land is situated. The petitioners have asserted that the notification was not published at any convenient place in the locality of the proposed acquisition. In other words, it is their assertion that the notification was not hung at a conspicuous place in village Muri. This fact has been denied on behalf of respondent no 1 in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit which reads thus:– "That with regard to the statement made in paragraph 3 of the writ petition, it is stated that on 22.3.1963 a public notice was issued as laid down in the Executive Instruction No. 13 of the Land Acquisition Mannual which was promulgated in Mud village and a copy of it was hung on the village Chauraha. A true copy of the notice along with the endorsement of the process server is appended hereto and is marked as Annexure A. Reading this paragraph, I must confess that I am at a loss to understand as to how a notice was hung on the "village chauraha". A village chauraha is a village junction of roads. How it was hung on the road is not understandable to me. A village chauraha is a village junction of roads. How it was hung on the road is not understandable to me. Further, it is more interesting to note that in support of this assertion, Annexure A has been appended to the counter affidavit which is purported to be copy of the notification under section 4 of the Act, which was hung on the village Chauraha by the process-server. Going through annexure A, one finds that it is not at all a copy of the notification under section 4 of the Act, but is a notice under section 9, sub-sections (1) and (2) of the Act. On the materials on the record, therefore it has got to be held that the assertion by the State that the notification under section 4 was published at some conspicuous place in village Muri must be rejected. It may further be pointed out that in Annexure A the particulars of the lands to be acquired are not given nor the area to be acquired even the plot numbers and the boundaries are also absent. 9. In the case of Narendrajit Singh vs. The State of U.P., A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 306, it was held that a notification under section 4 is the first step towards depriving a man of his property and must be strictly construed and courts ought not to tolerate any lapse on the part of the acquiring authority in the issue of such notification if it be of a serious nature. In the instant case, I will assume in favour of the petitioners that the notification did not conform to the requirements of section 4 of the Act, and was of serious nature. 10. The learned Government pleader on behalf of respondent no. 1 has however, urged that even if it is assumed that the notification under section 4 is vitiated, the petitioners cannot succeed because of great delay in coming to this Court. 11. It would, at this stage, be convenient to refer to some dates. The notification under section 4 of the Act, was issued on the 6th March, 1963 and the one under section 6 of the Act, on the 11th June. 1963. Admittedly, the petitioners filed their objection under section 5A on 26th August, 1963, which was rejected on 29th August. It would, at this stage, be convenient to refer to some dates. The notification under section 4 of the Act, was issued on the 6th March, 1963 and the one under section 6 of the Act, on the 11th June. 1963. Admittedly, the petitioners filed their objection under section 5A on 26th August, 1963, which was rejected on 29th August. 1963, in as much as the ordersheet on the land acquisition case on that date, after taking notice of the petition, states that 13th September, 1963, was fixed for making spot enquiries under section 11 and for which notices were to be issued to the Interested persons. The petitioners themselves have stated that the notice under section 12 of the Act, was received on 1st May, 1968 and they wore directed to receive compensation, a copy of the notice is annexure 6 and is dated 25th April, 1968. They have further stated that a reference has been made by the Land Acquisition Officer under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is obvious that the reference to the court is only done by any person interested who has not accepted the award and has made a written application to that extent stating that his objections were with regard to the measurement of the land, the amount of compensation or the persons to whom it is payable or the apportionment of the compensation. No date bas been given when this reference was made. 12. From what I have stated above, it is obvious that the petitioners knew that that the land acquisition proceedings, whether legally initiated or illegally, were continuing and they had been appearing in the case and even compensation had been determined some time in the year 1968, but still the petitioners did not choose to take any step to have the proceedings set aside. They only came to this Court in May, 1972, when steps were taken by the land acquisition authorities to take forcible occupation of the lands acquired as the petitioners were not giving up possession. They only came to this Court in May, 1972, when steps were taken by the land acquisition authorities to take forcible occupation of the lands acquired as the petitioners were not giving up possession. In the case of State of Mysore V.V.K. Kangan & other, A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 2190, it was held that if public notice as required under section 4 of the Act, is not given in time and that would per se vitiate the notification under section 4, the party aggrieved should challenge its validity within a reasonable time of the publication of the notification. In the instant case, the notification was published as early as on 6th March, 1963 and the petitioners came to know about it on 26th August, 1963 when they filed their objection under section 5A. Their objection evidently was not considered and this was brought to the notice of the petitioners in October, 1963. The petitioners even came to know about the compensation which was to be awarded to them in 1968 but still they chose to wait for four years before filing this application. Indeed this application has been filed nine years after the notification under section 4 and the notification was within the knowledge of the petitioners from August, 1963 itself. There is no plausible or reasonable explanation for this inordinate delay. 13. Mr. Prasad, however has submitted that since sometime in 1963 itself petitioners had moved the Railway Authorities against the proposed acquisition and the said authorities had written to the Deputy Commissioner to drop the proceedings, the petitioners thought that the public authority, namely the Land Acquisition Authority in this case, would Act, in accordance with the provisions of section 48 or the Act. Indeed, learned counsel had urged that where the purpose for the acquisition itself disappeared it was the duty of the Deputy Commissioner to have started proceedings under section 48 of the Act. It is not necessary to decide this question in the present case. Although the Railway authorities in December, 1963, had written that they were submitting a revised plan, the petitioners were aware since that very time that the proceedings had not been dropped. It is not necessary to decide this question in the present case. Although the Railway authorities in December, 1963, had written that they were submitting a revised plan, the petitioners were aware since that very time that the proceedings had not been dropped. Instead of coming to the Court at that very time the waited indefinitely and appeared in the acquisition proceedings from stage and it was only when steps for forcible occupation of the acquired lands was taken that the petitioners came to this court. I am therefore constrained to hold that there has been great delay on the part of the petitioners in approaching this Court. The delay has not been explained satisfactorily at all. In fact, it might be stated that in the writ petition no explanation whatsoever has been given for this inordinate delay. Even the argument advanced that the petitioners bona fide believed that the Deputy Commissioner would take recourse to the provisions of section 48 of the Act, and had therefore, waited till 1972 has not been stated in so many words. 14. Mr. Prasad has also relied upon an observation in Narendrajit Singh vs. The State of U.P., A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 306, case (supra) which is as follows:– "The fact that the petitioners did not go to Court immediately after the publication of the first notification is not a matter of any moment." The observation has to be read in the background of that case. There the notification under section 4 was published on 15th October 1960 and that had been challenged in Court on 1st December, 1960. Hence it is of no assistance to learned counsel in the instant case. 15. For the reasons given above, it has to be held that there has been long delay in invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court which, in the circumstances of the case defeats the petitioners prayer. 16. In the result, this application is dismissed but, in the circumstances of this case, I would make no order as to costs. I agree. Application dismissed.