Judgment :- The petitioner’s lands of about 700 sq.ft situate in R.S.No:1004/11 part notified under Central Act I of 1894 for acquisition for a project called Mass Rapid System connecting Madras Beach and Luz. The notification under Sec.4(1) was published the gazette on 12.2.1986 and the declaration under Sec.6 was published on 28.3.1987 gazette. Thereafter, an inquiry under Secs.9(3) and 10 of the Act was held, in which petitioner participated. The award was made on 31.3.1989. 2. The prayer in the writ petition is to call for the records relating to the notification Sec.4(1) and also declaration under $ec.6 in respect of the petitioner’s land and building to quash the same. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges three contentions. The first is that there delay in the publication of the declaration under Sec.6 and the delay is fatal. He submit that as per the amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, a period of one is available from the date of 4(1) notification to publish the declaration under Sec.6 insofar as in the instant case, the notification was on 12.2.1986, the declaration beyond the period of one year on 28.3.1987 is vitiated. In the same lines, he would that the declaration under Sec.6 having been made on 28.3.1987, the award should been made within two years thereof and since the award was made only on 31.3.1989, award is belated and that delay would nullify the entire acquisition proceedings. Thirdly, submitted that at the inquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act, the objections filed by the petitioner were merely forwarded to the requisitioning department and they had disposed objections in a routine manner and after the remarks from the requisitioning body received by the Land Acquisition Officer, no further inquiry was conducted and therefore, Sec.5-A inquiry was not in compliance with the Act. In this connection, learned placed reliance on the decision reported in Sinnaiyan v. Union Territory of Pondicheny, (1977)1 M.L.J. 342 . 4. In answer, the learned Additional Government Pleader would contend that none above objections of the petitioner is sustainable. From the records, he is able to show though the notification under Sec.4(1) was gazetted on 12.2.1986, the substance notification was published in the Tamil Newspaper on 3.3.1986 and in The Hindu 12.3.1986 and the substance of the notification was published in the locality on 4.4.1986. From the records, he is able to show though the notification under Sec.4(1) was gazetted on 12.2.1986, the substance notification was published in the Tamil Newspaper on 3.3.1986 and in The Hindu 12.3.1986 and the substance of the notification was published in the locality on 4.4.1986. Reckoning 4.4.1986 as the date of publication of notification under Sec.4(1), the declaration made on 28.3.1987 is well within a period of one year. 5. So far as the award dated 31.3.1989 is concerned, from the records, the Additional Government Pleader is able to establish that the declaration under Sec.6 though Gazetted 28.3.1987 was published in Tamil Newspaper on 30.3.1987 and News Today, an Newspaper on the same day and it was published in the locality on 1.4.1987. Reckoning date of declaration under Sec.6 as 1.4.1987, the award made on 31.3.1989 is well within years prescribed under Sec.11-A of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, there is no delay which is fatal to the proceedings. 6. So far as the inquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act is concerned, it is admitted by the that he was served with a notice under Rule 3of the Rules framed under Sec.55 of Acquisition Act indicating that he should submit his objections to the proposed within 15 days from the date of service of the notice. It was indicated that any statement received after the due date would be summarily rejected. It was also that the objections received within the due date would be inquired into on Therefore, it follows that if the objection statement had been filed within the period of 15 days from the date of service of notice under Rule 3, the inquiry was into those objections. The petitioner has not averred in his affidavit, the date on was served with the notice under Rule 3 nor has he stated affirmatively that he has objections within 15 days from the date of service of the notice. Therefore, there is to show that the petitioner has filed his objections within the due date warranting fledged inquiry under Sec.5-A. Merely, because the petitioner participated in the inquiry was held on 9.5.1986 along with several other persons, it would not confer on the a special right to question the legality of the inquiry held under Sec.5-A in the absence any valid objection statement filed by the petitioner within the due date. 7. 7. For the foregoing reasons, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the pendency of writ petition, his client has not sought for a reference under Sec.18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is granted weeks’ time from this date to make an application to the Land Acquisition Officer for reference under Sec.18 of the Act and when such an application is filed, it will be forwarded to the Sub Court to be decided on merits. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.