Judgment :- All these Writ Petitions challenge the validity of G.O. Ms. No. 247, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 10-9-1984, being the notification under S.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and the consequent declaration under S.6 issued in G. O. Ms. No. 1259, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 17-11-1986. The only contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that as per the Land Acquisition Amendment Act 68 of 1984, a declaration under S. 6 should be issued within one year from the date of the 4(1) notification. By the Amendment Act 68 of 1984, the notification under S.4(1) should not only be published in the Gazette but also in the local newspapers. The requirement to publish the substance of the 4(1) notification in the locality is also there in section 4(1) of the Act. The period of one year has to be calculated from the last of the aforesaid three notifications. Proviso (ii) to S. 6 says that no declaration under S. 6 shall be made after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the notification under S. 4(1) of the Act. In the instant case, there was one notification under S. 4(1), published in the Gazette on 10-9-1984, bearing G.O. Ms. No. 247, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department. In respect of this notification under S. 4(1) of the Act, there was no declaration under S. 6 within the period of one year as aforementioned. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that inasmuch as the said 4(1) notification had become null and void for failure to issue a declaration under S. 6 within the period of one year, the Government issued another notification under S. 4(i) bearing letter No. 10276/ M3/85-3, Municipal Administration and Water Supply dated 30th September, 1985, and the same was published in the Gazette on 16th October, 1985. It is submitted that this notification was published in the newspapers on 19-10-1985, and in the locality on 18-11-1985. A common counter-affidavit to this effect has been filed. The declaration under S. 6 was issued in G.O. Ms. No. 1259, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 17-11-1986 and the same was published in the Gazette on 17-11-1986. 2. It is needless to point out that if the 4(1) notification issued in G.O. Ms. A common counter-affidavit to this effect has been filed. The declaration under S. 6 was issued in G.O. Ms. No. 1259, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 17-11-1986 and the same was published in the Gazette on 17-11-1986. 2. It is needless to point out that if the 4(1) notification issued in G.O. Ms. No. 247, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 10-9-1984 is taken into account, the declaration under S. 6, issued in G.O. Ms. No. 1259, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 17-11-1986 is clearly beyond the period of one year and cannot, therefore, be valid. On the other hand, the contention of the State is that the 4(1) notification as per G.O. Ms. No. 247, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 10-9-1984 had become null and void and no longer in force and therefore, the one and the only 4(1) notification in existence in respect of the lands in question is the subsequent notification issued on 30th September, 1985, and published in the Gazette on 16-10-1985. It is not disputed that from the date of the publication of the substance of the notification in the locality, namely, from 18-11-1985, the present declaration under S. 6 is well within time. As already stated, the last of the publications has to be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the one year period. 3. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners have all along been under the impression that there is only one 4(1) notification, namely, the one which was issued under G. O. Ms. No. 247, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 10-9-1984. The further contention is that even assuming that there is a second notification issued under section 4(1) of the Act, the respondents have not made it clear as to which of the notifications should be taken into account for the purpose of the declaration under S. 6 issued in G. O. Ms. No. 1259, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 17-11-1986. The argument of the learned Government Pleader is that the first 4(1) notification, issued in G. O. Ms. No. 247, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 10-9-1984, automatically lapses because it had not been followed by a declaration under S. 6 within one year from the date of S. 4 publication. The argument of the learned Government Pleader is that the first 4(1) notification, issued in G. O. Ms. No. 247, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 10-9-1984, automatically lapses because it had not been followed by a declaration under S. 6 within one year from the date of S. 4 publication. Therefore, it cannot be contended that there are two 4(1) notifications in respect of the same land I am inclined to accept the argument of the learned Government Pleader because proviso (ii) to S. 6 makes it very clear that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification under S. 4(1) of the Act, shall be made after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the 4(1) notification. Therefore, the first notification issued under G. O. Ms. No. 247, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 10-9-1984 is no longer in force and cannot be acted upon after the lapse of one year. In this sense, there is no ambiguity about the notifications and I am clearly of the opinion that the one and the only notification under S. 4(1) is the subsequent notification issued in Letter No. 10276/M3/85-3, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 30th September, 1985, published in the Gazette on 16-10-1985. In this view of the matter, the argument of the learned counsel fails and the Writ Petitions are accordingly dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. It is open to the petitioner to challenge any other proceeding under the Act, if he is otherwise aggrieved. 4. So far as W. P. No. 3143 of 1989 is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the previous hearing conceded that the same is connected with the first three Writ Petitions and may be heard together. Today when the case is called, learned counsel for the petitioner in W. P. No. 3143 of 1989 is absent. However, having regard to his earlier concession that this is connected with the other three Writ Petitions, a common judgment is rendered. Petitions dismissed.