JUDGMENT Somasundaram, J. 1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 7507 of 1987. In the writ petition the appellants challenged the declaration made under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (Act I of 1894) hereinafter referred to as the act, on the ground that the said declaration has been made in the present case beyond the period of one year from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4of the Act. The learned single Judge took the view that the period of one year should be reckoned from 12.2.1986 the date on which the substance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the locality, and if so reckoned the declaration under Section 6 made on 4.2.1987 is well within a period of one year from the date on which the substance of notification under Section 4(1) was published in the locality. Consequently, the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition. The present writ appeal is filed against the said order of the learned single Judge. In the present case the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the Gazette on 1.1.1986; it was published in the Tamil daily on 13.1.1986; the same was published in the English daily on 12.1.1986 and the substance of Section 4(1) notification was published in the locality on 12.2.1986. The declaration under Section 6 was gazetted on 4.2.1987 it was published in the Tamil daily on 2.2.1987; the same was published in the English daily on 2.2.1987 and this declaration was published in the locality on 20.2.1987. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants, for calculating the period of one year prescribed in the 1st proviso to Section 6 of the Act, the date of publication of the declaration under Section 6 in the locality must be taken as the relevant date and if so taken the declaration under Section 6 made on 20.2.1987 is beyond the period of one year from 12.2.1986 the date on which the substance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the locality and the before the declaration made under Section 6 is invalid. The above contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is not warranted by the language of the 1st proviso to Section 6 of the Act. The above contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is not warranted by the language of the 1st proviso to Section 6 of the Act. Section 6 of the Act runs as follows: 6. Declaration that land is required for a public purpose : (1) Subject to the provisions of Part VII of this Act, when the appropriate Government is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made under Section 5-A, Sub-Section (2), that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, or for a Company, a declaration shall be made to that effect under the signature of a Secretary to such Government or of some officer duly authorised to certify its orders and different declarations maybe made from time to time in respect of different parcels of any land covered by the same notification under Section 4, Sub-section (1), irrespective of whether one report or different reports has or have been made whenever required under Section 5-A, Sub-section(2): Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by notification under Section 4, Sub-section (1): (i) Published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967, (I of 1967) but before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made after the expiry of three years from the date of the publication of the notification; or (ii) Published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 1984, shall be made after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the notification. 2. According to the 1st proviso to Section 6 of the Act no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by notification under Section 4, Sub-section (1) Published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made alter the expiry of one year from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Section 4(1) of the Act runs as follows: 4. Section 4(1) of the Act runs as follows: 4. Publication of preliminary notification and powers of officers the reupon : (1) Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose, or for a Company a notification to that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette, and in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be give at convenient places in the said locality, the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the notification. According to Section 4(1) there are three modes of Publication of notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act viz., (1) publication of the notification in the Official Gazette; (2) publication in two daily newspapers; and (3) Public notice of the substance of the notification in the locality. Section 4(1) of the Act further says that the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act means the last of the dates of the three modes of publication and the giving of public notice referred above. A proper reading of the 1st proviso to Section 6 along with Section 4(1) of the Act shows that the period of one year contemplated in the said proviso is the period between the last of the dates of the three modes of the publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and the date on which the declaration under Section 6 of the Act is made. There is nothing in the language of 1st proviso to Section 6 of the Act to show that the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act is not the date on which it is made, but the date on which the declaration under Section 6 was published either in the newspapers or in the locality. There is nothing in the language of 1st proviso to Section 6 of the Act to show that the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act is not the date on which it is made, but the date on which the declaration under Section 6 was published either in the newspapers or in the locality. It is pertinent to point out that the 1st proviso to Section 6 while referring to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act uses the expression "the date of publication of the notification"; whereas while referring to the declaration made under Section 6, the expression used is "the date on which the declaration under Section 6 is made." The declaration under Section 6 must be held to have been made on it being gazetted. With reference to notification under Section 4(1), it is the last of the dates of the publication from which time runs and with reference to declaration under Section 6 its making is decisive and not the date of its publication. In this case the last of the dates of the publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act viz., the publication of the substance of the notification in the locality was 12.2.1986 and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act made in the gazette on 4.2.1987 is well within one year, and in these circumstances the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the declaration under Section 6 of the Act has been made in this case beyond the period of one year from the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act cannot be countenanced. 3. For all the reasons given above, we fully agree with the view taken by the learned single Judge. There are no merits in the writ appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.