S. P. BHARUCHA, J. ( 1 ) THE appeal is directed against the order dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are these; we are concerned with land admeasuring 1a-30g bearing sy. No. 658/2a and land admeasuring 1a-37g bearing sy. No. 658/2b in chamarajanagara taluk, Mysore district. These lands belong to the appellant. On 4th march, 1985 a notification was issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to acquire the lands for the public purpose of the regional silk research centre. A notification dated 4th december, 1986 was issued under Section 6 of the act. On 23rd january, 1987 the appellant filed a writ petition in this court (being W. P. No. 1044 of 1987) and obtained on 23rd january, 1987 an interim stay of further proceedings. The writ petition was heard and disposed of on 4th october, 1988. The learned judge found from the records produced by the government pleader that the enquiry under Section 5-a did not meet the requirements of law for there was nothing to show that the objections of the appellant had been considered. In the circumstances, he held the enquiry to be bad and allowed the writ petition. He directed the appellant to appear before the land acquisition officer on 25th october, 1988. On 25th november, 1988 a fresh enquiry under Section 5-a was started and it was concluded on 23rd december, 1989. On 12th april, 1990 the state government approved the report of the land acquisition officer and directed the issuance of a Section 6 notification. The Section 6 notification was issued on 3rd may, 1990. This writ petition was filed to challenge the acquisition proceedings. ( 3 ) THE interim stay was granted on 23rd january, 1987 and remained in operation upto 4th october, 1988, when the writ petition was decided; the period of 1 year 9 months and 12 days was covered by the stay. That this period has to be excluded from the statutory period of 3 years for the issuance of a Section 6 notification is not in dispute. That this period has to be excluded from the statutory period of 3 years for the issuance of a Section 6 notification is not in dispute. ( 4 ) WHAT is contended on behalf of the appellant is that the period of time that elapsed between 4th october, 1988, which was the date of the order on the earlier writ petition, and 3rd may, 1990, which was the date upon which the Section 6 notification was issued (a period of 1 year, 6 months and 29 days) could not also be excluded. It is contended on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, that this period has to be excluded having regard to the amendment to the Land Acquisition Act as it operates in this state [land acquisition (mysore extension and amendment) act xvii of 1961 as amended by land acquisition (mysore amendment and validation) act x of 1968]. The relevant portion of Section 6 reads thus:"provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4, published after the commencement of the land, acquisition (mysore amendment and validation) Act, 1967, shall be made after the expiry of three years from the date of such publication. Explanation. in computing the period of three years specified,in this sub-section, any period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 4 is held up on account of stay or injunction by order of a court shall be excluded. " ( 5 ) THE proviso speaks for itself. An analysis of the explanation is necessary. It says that in computing the period of three years mentioned in the proviso, the period during which any action or proceeding which is required to be taken in pursuance of a Section 4 notification is held up on account of a stay or injunction granted by a court has to be excluded. The explanation, therefore, mandates the exclusion of the period during which a stay or injunction order prevents action consequent upon a Section 4 notification, and no more. It does not require the exclusion of any period of time which might be consumed subsequent to the vacation of the stay or injunction order even though the same might be on account of directions issued by a court. It does not require the exclusion of any period of time which might be consumed subsequent to the vacation of the stay or injunction order even though the same might be on account of directions issued by a court. We cannot, therefore, accept the argument on behalf of the respondents that the period of time subsequent to the date of remand and until the issuance of the Section 6 notification has also to be excluded. ( 6 ) THE Section 4 notification was issued on 4th march, 1985. The Section 6 notification was issued on 3rd may, 1990. The Section 6 notification was thus issued 5 years, 1 month and 20 days after the Section 4 notification. The period of 1 year, 9 months and 12 days, which was the period during which the order of stay operated, must be excluded therefrom. The Section 6 notification was, therefore, issued after the expiry of three years from the date of publication of Section 4 notification and both must be struck down in so far as they concern the appellant's lands. ( 7 ) WE must note that this was not a point urged before the learned single judge, but was taken only in appeal. ( 8 ) WE must also note that we have, at his request, heard counsel for the acquiring body, the regional silk research centre, before passing this order. ( 9 ) THE appeal is allowed. The order dismissing the writ petition is set aside. The petition is made absolute in terms of the prayer at para 8 (1 ). It is made clear that the notifications under sections 4 and 6 are set aside only in so far as they concern the appellant's lands. There shall be no orders as to costs. --- *** --- .