Judgment :- Chandurkar, CJ The grievance made by the appellant with regard to the validity of the land acquisition proceedings; in this appeal is wholly misconceived. The notification was under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) in respect of the land which is owned by five joint owners and it was sought to be acquired for the purpose of a bus depot of what is originally called the Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd. What was sought in the petition under Article 726 rather surprisingly, in our view, was a mandamus to respondents 1 and 2 forbearing them from proceeding with the land acquisition proceedings. Fortunately for the appellant and unfortunately for the Revenue authorities that petition came to be admitted. The proceedings were stayed and the order finally disposing of the petition dated 2nd November, 1983 would show how frivolous the objection was, with the result that the land acquisition proceedings have been withheld unnecessarily for a period of almost five years. At the time of the final hearing, the learned Judge on a perusal of the records relating to the proceedings for acquisition found that the grievance that there was no proper enquiry under section 5-A was wholly unjustified as the records disclosed that there was an enquiry under section 5-A of the Act and the objections were considered. The petition having been dismissed, the appellant has come to this court by way of appeal. 2. A bare perusal of the records will disclose how frivolous this appeal also is. The records disclose that the objections under section 5-A which were made jointly by all the owners and which were said to have been submitted to the Revenue Authority on 19.12.1978 were received on 12.2.1979. On 12.2.1979 which was the date fixed for the enquiry, a statement of the Village Officer was recorded. One set of objections was submitted by one Abdul Subhan on 10.3.1979. The Revenue Officer sent these objections to the Cholan Roadways Corporation Limited on 31.3.1979. "‘hen their report was received with regard to the objections raised by the owners, the remarks of the requisitioning body on the relevant objections of the land owners were put in a tabular form by the Revenue Divisional Officer and sent by registered post to all the owners on 27.4.1979. The objectors were asked to send their report before 7-5-1979. "‘hen their report was received with regard to the objections raised by the owners, the remarks of the requisitioning body on the relevant objections of the land owners were put in a tabular form by the Revenue Divisional Officer and sent by registered post to all the owners on 27.4.1979. The objectors were asked to send their report before 7-5-1979. It may be noted that the objectors were all residents of Tiruchirapalli and the Revenue Officer is also at the same place. What happened thereafter was that only two of the land owners, namely, V.S.Eswari and Abdul Subban sent applications for time. The record does not disclose that any steps were taken by the present appellant Mani to proceed further with his objections. As a matter of fact, the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer and the order in the enquiry under section 5-A specifically stated that the other objectors have not sent any reply at all. The objections were rejected and it was at that stage the present appellant approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. It is difficult to see what case the present objector can make out to the land acquisition proceedings. The appellant has not taken care to proceed with the objections which he has raised. If he wanted to say anything with regard to the reply of the requisitioning body, he should have either sent in writing or should have appeared on 7.5.1979 before the appropriate authority. If he has failed to do any one of these things then he cannot rush to this court and make a grievance that there has been no enquiry under section 5-A, As a matter of fact, the statement that there has been no enquiry made by the Revenue Divisional Officer under section 5-A of the Act is wholly incorrect and is not borne out by the records. The appeal has, therefore, to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. 4. Before we part with this appeal, we think it necessary to observe that interim orders passed in land acquisition proceedings at the stage of section 4(1) notification unnecessarily cause a delay in continuing the proceedings. Normally, the proper occasion for a person affected by the land acquisition proceedings to question’ it would be the stage at which a notification under section 6 of the Act is issued. Normally, the proper occasion for a person affected by the land acquisition proceedings to question’ it would be the stage at which a notification under section 6 of the Act is issued. It would be in extremely rare cases where there is patently want of jurisdiction or absence of public purpose that it may ¦ be permissible to entertain a petition against a notification under section 4(1). The common experience, however, is that most of the facts are not disclosed in the petitions and interim orders are sought on inadequate facts and in such a case, it would, therefore, be proper to call for the records of the case before an order staying absolutely the proceedings consequent upon a notification under section 4(1) of the Act is being made. The present case, as pointed out above, is a clear illustration of how most unjustifiably the land acquisition proceedings have been delayed for a period of eight years. The appellant will pay the costs of this appeal. Costs Rs.500/-.