Judgment :- Venkataswami, J.: This writ appeal is filed against the order of the learned W.P.No.14480 of 1990, dated 15.2.1991. 2. The only question that arises for our consideration in this writ appeal is, what the date of the publication of the Notification for the purpose of Clause (ii) of the Proviso sub-sec.(1) of Sec.6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’)? the date of publication of the 4(1) Notification in the Official Gazette, or can it be date of publication of the 4(1) Notification in two daily newspapers circulating, in the as required in that section, or from the date of publication notice of the substance Notification at convenient places in the locality. We are concerned with Sections as by Central Act 68 of 1984. 3. The admitted facts are the following: In this case, the Notification under Sec.4(l) of the Act dated 21.4.1989 was published Official Gazette on 17.5.1989. The publication of the Notification in the daily 19.5.1989. However, the substance of the same was published in convenient place locality only on 5.7.1989. The declaration under Sec.6 of the Act was published on It is common ground that if the date of publication of Sec.4(1) notification is to be from the date of publication of the same in the Official Gazette, then the declaration Sec.6 of the Act is barred under Clause (ii) of Proviso to sub-sec(1) of Sec.6 of the other hand, if the time is to reckon from the date of public notice of the substance 4(1) Notification in convenient places of the locality, the declaration is in time. 4. Mishra, J. was of the view that the time has to be reckoned from the date of publication Sec.4(1) Notification in the Official Gazette, and in so doing, the declaration being time, quashed the Notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act. Aggrieved by the above decision the learned Judge, the Government have preferred this appeal. 5. Mr.M.A.Sadanand, learned Government Pleader, after referring to Secs.4(1) and Act, as amended by Central Act 68 of 1984, and in particular, inviting our attention amendment to Sec.4(1) by Central Act 68 of 1984, submitted that the view taken learned Judge is contrary to the view expressed by Mohan, J., as he then S.Vellaikkan v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 1988 Writ.L.R. 22, and requires reconsideration. the case reported in S. Vellaikkan v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 1988 Writ.L.R. 22, the Judge has taken the view that it is the date on which the substance of the 4(1) Notification was published in the convenient place of the locality, that was material for the purpose calculating the period of one year contemplated under Sec.6 of the Act. We find a to a judgment of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Radhey Shyam, A.I.R. 1989 and two Division Bench judgments of this Court in G.Nandakumar v. State of Tamil 1985 T.L.N.J. 109 and P.Venkatarathinam Naidu v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1990 T.L.N.J. will be apposite in the context. 6. Contending contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted the language of Sec.4(1) read with Sec.6 of the Act, the view taken by the learned (Mishra, J.) is correct, and if at all, only the view taken by Mohan, J., as he then requires reconsideration. 7. For appreciating the rival contentions, it is necessary to set out Sec.4(1) and the portion of Sec.6 of the Act as amended by Act 68 of 1984. They are as follows: "4. Publication of preliminary notification and powers of officers thereupon: (1) Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose, or company, a notification to that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette, and 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 be given at convenient places in the said locality the last of the dates of such publication the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of publication notification." "6. Declaration that land is required for a public purpose: (1) Subject to the provisions Part VII of this Act, when the appropriate Government is satisfied, after considering report, if any, made under Sec.5-A, sub-sec.(2), that any particular land is needed public purpose, or for a company, a declaration shall be made to that effect under signature of a Secretary to such Government or of some officer duly authorised to certify orders and different declarations may be made from time to time in respect of different parcels of any land covered by the same notification under Sec.4, sub-sec.(l), irrespective whether one report or different reports has or have been made (wherever required Sec.5-A, sub-sec.(2): Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification Sec.4, sub-sec.(l): (i) xx xx xx (ii) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, be made after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the notification: "Provided further that no such declaration shall be made unless the compensation awarded for such property is to be paid by a company, or wholly or partly out of revenues or some fund controlled or managed by a local authority. "Explanation 1: In computing any of the periods referred to in the first proviso, the during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the notification under Sec.4, sub-sec(i), is stayed by an order of a court shall be excluded." 8. Before expressing our view, we consider that it would be advantageous to extract relevant portions from the reported judgments cited before us. 9. In S. Vellaikkan v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 1988 Writ L.R. 22, Mohan, J., as he was, had occasion to consider an exactly identical question. The learned Judge held follows: "Now, the question arises what exactly is the date of publication of the notification, because it is from that date one year is prescribed under the amended Sec.6(1) of the Act. It is by a careful reading of Clause (c) the last date of such publication and the giving of public notice being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the notification. In the case on hand, as stated earlier, the notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act was made G.O.Ms.No.1824, Social Welfare Department, dated 5.9.1985. It is by a careful reading of Clause (c) the last date of such publication and the giving of public notice being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the notification. In the case on hand, as stated earlier, the notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act was made G.O.Ms.No.1824, Social Welfare Department, dated 5.9.1985. That was published Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 18.9.1985, in the Tamil Daily Dhinathanthi 28.9.1985, and in The Hindu of 1.10.1985. Thereafter, the Collector caused public notice the substance of the notification under Sec.4(1) at convenient places in the said locality 10.10.1985. Page 94 of the file clearly shows that this was done in the village by beat tom-tom, which will be sufficient compliance, and by affixture at convenient places. is clear the last date of the publication of the notification under Sec.4(1) being 19.10.1985, it is that date which is material for calculating the one year period prescribed under Sec.6 the Act. By the amendment of Sec.6 it is laid down in no uncertain terms, that where notification under Sec.4(1) is published after the amendment of the Land Acquisition which amendment came into force on 24.9.1984, the period is one year because the to Sec.6(ii) says that no declaration under Sec.6 shall be published after the expiry year from the date of the publication of the notification. In this case Sec.4(1) notification on 5.9.1985 as seen already. It is undoubtedly after the amending Act 68 of 1984 in case the one year period alone is available. It is, in this connection, the date of publication notification under Sec.4(1), the last of the date being 19.10.1985, becomes material. reckoned from the date, undoubtedly the declaration under Sec.6 made in G.O.Ms.No.2743, 16.10.1986 published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 16.10.1986 and in English daily News Today on 17.10.1986, 18.10.1986, Makkalkural Tamil Daily on 17.10.1986 18.10.1986 are perfectly within the one year period. Therefore, the first contention raised the petitioner fails." 10. In G.Nandakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1985 T.L.N.J. 109, a Division Bench of Court has considered the consequence of inordinate delay between the dates of publication of 4(1) in the Official Gazette and the publication of substance of the same in the convenient places of the locality. Therefore, the first contention raised the petitioner fails." 10. In G.Nandakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1985 T.L.N.J. 109, a Division Bench of Court has considered the consequence of inordinate delay between the dates of publication of 4(1) in the Official Gazette and the publication of substance of the same in the convenient places of the locality. While so considering, the learned Judges have noted that compliance of publication of the substance of Sec.4(l) Notification is mandatory and non-compliance is fatal to the entire acquisition proceedings. In support of that, the learned Judges referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Khub Chand and others v. The Rajasthan and others, (1967)1 S.C.R. 1074. Of course, they have repelled a contention the substance of the 4(1) Notification should be published simultaneously with publication of the 4(1) Notification in the Official Gazette. However, the learned Judges that they must be contemporaneous and there must be evidence to show that there continuity of action. This is what the learned Judges have held, after elaborate discussion: "The provisions being mandatory and the law of acquisition being one of depriving citizens of their right to property to which some of them are sentimentally attached, compliance of the provisions of law is required. It is clear that local notice should be not simultaneously at the announced time in the Gazette and in the locality but within a minimum possible time after the notification. The officials concerned have to sincerity and in a most diligent manner because any avoidable delay would render publicity contemplated under Sec.4(1) of the Act effectless." 11. In P.Venkatarathinam Naidu v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1990 T.L.N.J. 264, another Bench followed the above Division Bench judgment and quashed the acquisition proceedings on the ground of a deep gap between the publication in the newspapers and the publication of the substance of the 4(1) Notification in convenient places of the locality. 12. One Supreme Court judgment has to be looked into now. 12. One Supreme Court judgment has to be looked into now. In State of U.P. v. Shyam, A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 682, the Supreme Court considered a question in the Amendments introduced to Secs.4, 6 and 17(4) of the Act by Central Act 68 of 1984, question is as follows: "whether the declaration under Sec.6 of the Act could be issued simultaneously along the Notification under Sec.4 of the Act in view of the amendment made to Sec.17(4) Act.?" After an elaborate discussion, the Supreme Court held as follows: "But the words "after the date of the publication of the notification" in sub-sec.(4) of read simpliciter clearly indicate that declaration under Sec.6 had to be made publication of the notification meaning thereby subsequent to the date of the publication the notification." In the course of the judgment, the Supreme Court has made certain observations which relevant and helpful for deciding the issue on hand. The Supreme Court, after noticing earlier decision Collector (District Magistrate), Allahabad v. Raja Ram Jaiswal, A.I.R. S.C. 1622, observed as follows: "This Court held that the publication of the notice in the locality as required in the part of Sec.4(1) of the Act was mandatory and unless that notice was given in accordance with the provisions contained therein, the entire acquisition proceedings would be The Court further held that the assumption that the sole purpose behind publication notice in the locality under Sec.4(1) was to give an opportunity to the person interested land to object to the acquisition under Sec.5-A of the Act was not well-founded. Therefore, cannot be said that where such person files his objections, the purpose was achieved that the failure to give public notice in the locality need not be treated as fatal proceedings." The Supreme Court, on the scope of the interpretation of a statute, observed, after another judgment of the Supreme Court in Raja Satyendra Narayan Singh v. State of A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 1390: (1987)3 S.C.C. 319, as follows: "The basic principle, it was reiterated at page 325 of the reports, of the construction of statute was to find out what is clearly stated and not to speculate upon latent imponderables. The scheme of the Act also must be looked into. The scheme of the Act also must be looked into. In interpreting the statutes it is safer on the obvious meaning rather than to investigate the imponderables." Bearing in mind the various ratios laid down by this Court and the principles laid down Supreme Court as referred to above, let us now consider the question on hand. 13. Bearing in mind the various ratios laid down by this Court and the principles laid down the Supreme Court as referred to above, let us now consider the question on hand. 14. We have extracted above, the relevant provisions. Mishra, J., expressed his view the question on hand as follows: "Coming to the language of Sec.4 of the Act however I find that while it has clearly stipulated publication of the Preliminary notification in the Official Gazette and in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality, it says that the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification. While the contemplated publication in the Official Gazette and daily newspapers is the publication of the text of the notification, only substance notification is required to be given at convenient places in the locality. It is clear therefore that publication of the notification must in the circumstances of the case mean publication the Official Gazette and in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality. The words 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" are meant for the actions the officers may take with respect to the land proposed to be acquired." The learned Judge has also given another reason for the above view in the following words: "If publication in the Official Gazette and in daily newspapers on the one hand and notice the substance of the notification on the other hand are made on different dates and there long gap of time between the two, will it be open to the State Government and/or officers say that they would treat the public notice of the substance of the notification as the publication and ignore the publication in the official gazette and in the daily newspapers for the purpose of clause (ii) to Proviso to sub-sec(1) of Sec.6 of the Act? The learned Judge answers the above question as follows: "The legislature has said ‘the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of public notice’ evidently to indicate that there may be some gap between the publication the Official Gazette ad the newspapers and between the publication in the Official and the newspapers and the public notice. The last date of such publication in the expression must in the context confine to the purpose under Sec.4(2) of the Act and extend to the purpose of the declaration under Sec.6 of the Act." On that basis, the learned Judge was firmly of the view that the date of publication substance of the 4(1) Notification in the convenient places of the locality cannot be the last date for the purpose of counting one year contemplated under Clause (ii) to sub-sec. (1) of Sec.6 of the Act. With respect, we are unable to agree with the view by the learned Judge. We shall immediately give our reasons. 15. First of all, the reason given by the learned Judge that the words ‘the last of the such publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to date of the publication of the notification’ are meant for the actions that the officers may with respect to the land proposed to be acquired, does not appear to be sound. For, the absence of those words, the section conveys the same idea particularly in view of the word ‘thereafter’ in Sec.4(2). The language employed in Sec.4(l) is, that each the requirements, namely, publication in Official Gazette, publication in the newspapers, publication of the substance in convenient places of the locality are all indispensable observed by the Supreme Court, the non-observance of any one of those requirements be fatal to the acquisition proceedings. Therefore, unless all the three requirements complied with, the officers cannot invoke Sec.4(2) of the Act. As noticed above, the Court has clearly observed that the publication of the substance of the notification convenient places of the locality is as important as that of the other two requirements. Again, applying principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of interpretation of statutes, namely, the Court must find out what is clearly stated in the statute and not speculate upon latent imponderables, we consider that the interpretation given by the learned Judge cannot be sustained. Again, applying principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of interpretation of statutes, namely, the Court must find out what is clearly stated in the statute and not speculate upon latent imponderables, we consider that the interpretation given by the learned Judge cannot be sustained. We are, therefore, of the view that a plain reading of the words, namely, last of the dates of such publication and of the giving of such public notice being hereinafter referred to as the date of publication of the Notification’ introduced in Sec.4(1) by Central 68 of 1984, will only mean that the date on which public notice of the substance of notification is given at convenient places in the locality is to be taken as the date publication of the Notification in Sec.4(1) of the Act for the purpose of computing the period of one year contemplated under Clause (ii) of proviso to sub-sec.(1) of Sec.6 of the Mohan, J., as he then was, in S.Vellaikkan v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 1988 Writ L.R. 22, taken similar view, with which we concur. 16. The apprehension expressed by the learned Judge that the other interpretation, namely, taking into account the publication of substance of the 4(1) Notification in the convenient places of the locality, as the last date, would enable the Government to take undue advantage of the same, is answered in the Division Bench judgments of this Court. The learned, Judges have clearly-stated that there should not be long gap between the publication of the 4(1) Notification in the Official Gazette and in the newspapers and the publication of the substance of the 4(1) notification in convenient places in the locality. In fact, the learned Judges have quashed the acquisition proceedings in those two cases on account of deep gap, as noticed above. We would like reiterate that there must be continuity of action in the publication of the 4(1) notification the Official Gazette and in the newspapers and also in giving public notice of the substance the 4(1) notification at convenient places in the locality, and if there is any long delay and/or break in the continuity, in any individual case, it is open to the court to quash the acquisition proceedings. It is obvious on a plain reading of the said Amendment that for the purpose finding out the last of the dates, the publication and giving of public notice are made inseparable in the Amendment and therefore the date on which public notice substance of the 4(1) notification was given at the convenient places in the locality be ignored for the purpose of finding out the last of the dates. Unless there are convincing reasons such as stay granted by Courts or Competent Authorities or otherwise, the between the publication of the 4(1) notification in the Official Gazette and the public of the substance at convenient places of the locality should not exceed two months exceeds two months, it is liable to be questioned. 17. On facts, it is not disputed before us that the declaration under Sec.6 was well one year from the date of public notice of the substance of the 4(1) notification convenient places in the locality. Therefore, the challenge to the declaration under the ground that it is beyond one year from the date of publication of 4(1) notification Gazette, cannot be (sic.) sustained. 18. In the result, the writ appeal is allowed, the order of the learned judge is set aside, the writ petition is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.