Judgment :- VENKATASWAMI, J. 1. This writ appeal is directed against in Order passed in Writ Petition No. 16499 of 1990 dated 19-9-1991. 2. The respondents have successfully challenged the land acquisition proceedings before the learned single Judge. Aggrieved by that, the appellants have filed this writ appeal. 3. Brief facts are the following:— It is not in dispute that the respondent are owners of Survey Number 790/3-C measuring about 1-55 acres situated in Mettupalayam Village, Kangeyam Taluk. The second respondent is a life interest holder over the said property and the first respondent is the absolute owner of vested remainder of the same after the lifetime of the second respondent. The necessary Notification under S. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) to acquire the above said land was published in the Government Gazette on 4.5.1988. It was also published in two Tamil Dailies on 7.5.1988. The contents of the Notification were published in the locality on 30.5.1988. Originally an enquiry under S. 5-A of the Act was proposed to be held on 14.7.1988. But it was cancelled and later on, the enquiry under S. 5-A of the Act was held on 2.12.1988. Thereafter, a Declaration under S. 6 of the Act was published in the Government Gazette on 6.9.1989. As per the counter affidavit now filed by the appellants, an Award Enquiry was held and an award was passed on 6.7.1990. Possession was also taken on 31.7.1990 and thereafter pattas were granted to the Adi Dravidas for whom the lands were acquired. However, the case of the respondent was that they were not given any notice for the Enquiry under S. 5-A of the Act and they knew about the acquisition only when the Declaration under S. 6 of the Act was brought to their notice, and thereafter they filed the writ petition challenging the Notification under S. 4(1) of the Act and also the Declaration under S. 6 of the Act. It is the further case of the respondents that though they are the owners of the land as mentioned above, notice for the enquiry under S. 5-A of the Act was given to one Mariappa Gounder, grandfather of the first respondent and father-in-law of the second respondent. It is the further case of the respondents that though they are the owners of the land as mentioned above, notice for the enquiry under S. 5-A of the Act was given to one Mariappa Gounder, grandfather of the first respondent and father-in-law of the second respondent. The challenge to the 4(1) Notification before the learned Judge was on the basis that there was inordinate and unexplained delay between the publication of the 4(1) Notification in the Government Gazette and the publication of the contents of the 4(1) Notification in the locality which was done on 13-10-1988. We may mention here that we have already given the date of publication of the contents of the 4(1) Notification in the locality as 30-5-1988 earlier. We will explain the second publication at the appropriate place. 4. The learned Judge, accepting the case of the respondents that they were not served with the notices for enquiry under S. 5-A of the Act and there was inordinate delay as mentioned above, allowed the writ petition and quashed the land acquisition proceedings from the stage of 4(1) Notification. 5. Before the learned single Judge, no counter affidavit was filed by the appellant herein, who were respondents before him. The appellants have now filed a counter affidavit wherein they have stated that though the contents of the Notification were published in the locality on 30.5.1988, the Land Acquisition Officer entertained a doubt regarding the correctness of the Notification issued under S. 4(1) of the Act already published, in particular, regarding boundaries, and therefore, he wanted the doubt to be clarified by the Collector, who, according to the counter, directed the Land Acquisition Officer to proceed with the acquisition without any further amendment. The Collector cleared the doubt on 7-10-1992 and properly explained as above and before proceeding further, the land Acquisition officer again published the contents of the Notification in the locality on 13-10-1988. According to the appellants in view of the explanation given for the delay, it cannot be contended that there is a delay between the 4(1) Notification and publication of the contents of the Notification in the locality which would vitiate the land acquisition proceedings. According to the appellants in view of the explanation given for the delay, it cannot be contended that there is a delay between the 4(1) Notification and publication of the contents of the Notification in the locality which would vitiate the land acquisition proceedings. As regards, the service of notice under S. 5-A of the Act, in the counter affidavit, the appellants have stated that both the respondents herein were present at the time of 5-A enquiry and have given a statement recorded by the officer, to the effect that they have no objection for the acquisition. Therefore, according to the appellants both the grounds given by the learned single Judge to quash the land acquisition proceedings are not available in view of the facts explained in the counter and, therefore, the order of the learned Judge should be set aside. 6. Mr. M.A. Sadanand, learned Government Pleader, addressed arguments based on the statement made in the counter. Since there is a dispute regarding the service of notice under S. 5-A of the Act. We called for the file. In the file, there is a statement purported to have been signed by the first respondent, and the second respondent has affixed her left thumb impression. On the basis of that, the learned Government pleader contended that the respondents have come to this Court with false allegations. When we asked the learned Government pleader about the necessity for the issue of a second publication of the contents of the Notification in the locality, he could not justify the same as no change was made in the 4(1) Notification. According to the learned Government pleader, as the two grounds on which the writ petition was allowed are not available, the appellants are entitled to succeed in the writ appeal. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently denied that the respondents were served with notice and they were present at the time of 5-A enquiry. The statement alleged to have been given by them, in which the first respondent is alleged to have signed and the second respondent is alleged to have affixed her left thumb impression must be got up one. The first respondent has also filed an affidavit denying the statement of himself and his mother (second respondent) in an alleged enquiry under S. 5-A of the Act. According to the first respondent, he used to sign only as. The first respondent has also filed an affidavit denying the statement of himself and his mother (second respondent) in an alleged enquiry under S. 5-A of the Act. According to the first respondent, he used to sign only as. The statement supposed to have been signed by him at the time of 5-A enquiry contains his signature as. This itself shows the falsity of the claim of the appellants. 8. We have compared the signature of the first respondent in the affidavit filed by him in the writ petition and the vakalath filed by him in the writ petition with the signature in the present affidavit the writ appeal. We are not able to summarily reject the statement of the first respondent that the signature found in the file was not his. Likewise, though there is some resemblance between the left thumb impression of Valliammal found in the statement alleged to have been given by her in the 5-A enquiry and her admitted left thumb-impression, we are not sure whether the left thump impression found in the 5-A enquiry statement is that of the second respondent. We have another reason to doubt the genuineness of the signature and the left thumb impression. That is, immediately after the 5-A enquiry, a report was sent recommending the acquisition. There is no positive statement in the Report that both the respondents were present and they gave a statement in writing consenting for the acquisition. For these reasons, we are not impressed by the statement in the counter-affidavit that the respondents were served with notice for the enquiry under S. 5-A of the Act, and that they were present and gave a statement consenting for Acquisition. 9. Coming to the next point, namely, the publication of the second notification, the learned Government pleader wants to rely upon the first notification, namely, the notification dated 30-5-1988 to contend that there was no delay. If that contention is accepted, the declaration published on 6-9-1989, beyond one year from 3-5-1988 will vitiate the main acquisition proceedings. Therefore, necessarily he will have to rely on the second notification the contents of which were published in the locality on 13.10.1988. For publishing a second notification, there is no valid reason, and the reason given is not acceptable one. Therefore, necessarily he will have to rely on the second notification the contents of which were published in the locality on 13.10.1988. For publishing a second notification, there is no valid reason, and the reason given is not acceptable one. There is nothing on record to show that the Collector directed the Land Acquisition Officer to publish a second notification in the locality. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents the second notification was purposely and deliberately issued to save the limitation in the publication of declaration under S. 6 of the Act. We may also state that the learned Government Pleader also could not justify the second notification dated 13.10.1988. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that notwithstanding the fact that the writ petition was allowed, and even after knowing that fact, in spite of protests the appellants deliberately proceeded with the issue of pattas and allowed constructions to come up. In fact, the respondents moved the learned single Judge with a prayer to punish the respondents for contempt. But that was not entertained in view of the pendency of this writ appeal. We have no doubt that on the facts of this case, the notification under S. 4(1) of the Act is liable to be quashed, and accordingly we quash the impugned 4(1) Notification. However, the respondents cannot be restored with possession of the land in question as the appellants have issued pattas to various parties and allowed to proceed with constructions, and as a result of our quashing the 4(1) Notification, the appellants are obliged to issue fresh 4(1) Notification and complete all the formalities to make the, acquisition lawful one. Nevertheless having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, while maintaining the status quo as on date regarding possession we pass the following order: 11. We direct the appellants to fix the market value of the land in question after giving all reasonable opportunities to respondents, as on the date of this judgment treating this date as the date of S. 4(1) Notification with liberty to the Respondents writ petitioner to question the quantum, if they are aggrieved by the fixation, in the sub Court, as if the fixation is an award under the Land Acquisition Act. We are aware that the relief prayed for in the writ petition is not the one which we have now granted but in the circumstances of the case, we feel that the above judgment will meet the ends of justice and also the interests of both parties. The writ appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Time for fixing and paying the amount to the respondents is fixed at 3 months from to-day.