Judgment : This writ petition is filed for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the Government Order Rt. No.124, Housing Department, dated 5. 1975, published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 16. 1975, of the file of the first respondent and also the Notification issued under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the land of the petitioners bearing survey Nos.94, part 95, 96/2A, 96/2B, 98/1, 92/2,103/1,103/2 and 105 measuring in all 5.57 acres in Nerkundram Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpet District etc. 2 The petitioners have raised the following grounds: (i) The Notification under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 16. 1975 and the substance of the notification published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette was not published in the village Panchayat office and other convenient places. According to Rule 1 of the rules framed under Sec.55(1) of the Act, the substance of the notification published in the Government Gazette should have been published in the village and the village panchayat etc. immediately after publication of the notification in the official gazette. The petitioners are deprived of the fundamental right to put forth their objections within the statutory time limit laid down in sub-sec.(1) of Sec.5-A of the Act and under Rule 1 of the rules framed under Sec.55(1) of the Act and the failure on the part of the respondents to comply with the above said provisions of the rules and the Act is fatal and consequently, the acquisition proceedings are illegal and this point has been decided in W.A.Nos.987 of 1984, 1065 and 1066 of 1984 and also reported in Thiruvaleeswarar Temple, Nerkundram v. The State of Tamil Nadu and another, (1990) 1 M.L.J. 142 . (ii) In W.P.No.2734 of 1983 filed by the late father of the petitioners herein, this Court has granted interim stay on 23. 1983 upto 14. 1983. There was no stay subsequently of the Land Acquisition proceedings. Ultimately the stay petition was dismissed on 12. 1987 and the writ petition was allowed on 21. 1988 leaving Sec.4(1) Notification of the Act intact. As per the amended Act 68 of 1984 in Sec.11(1) the Award should have been passed within two years from the date of Sec.6 declaration and the declaration under Sec.6 was published prior to 29. 1984. 1987 and the writ petition was allowed on 21. 1988 leaving Sec.4(1) Notification of the Act intact. As per the amended Act 68 of 1984 in Sec.11(1) the Award should have been passed within two years from the date of Sec.6 declaration and the declaration under Sec.6 was published prior to 29. 1984. The award should have been passed by the respondents on or before 29. 1986. But the Award has not been passed within two years. It has been well decided in 1988 L.A.C.C. 711, Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Belgaum, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 1161 and (1989)2 All India Law Reporter 276. (iii) If the fresh declaration is now issued after the stipulated period as contemplated under the Amended Act in the year 1990 and the Award is passed in the year 1991, the petitioners will be given compensation only with the reference to market value as in 1975 which would be considerably low and meagre. In Sree Vengeeswarar Alagar Perumal Devasthanam v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1984)2 M.L.J. 427 , this Court has held that an. award purported to be passed after a period of 20 years from the notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act will be mockery of the rights of the citizen because the valuation would be very meagre as such as the value of the land itself has gone down heavily and that there is a continuous and exorbitant uptrend in the value of the landed property. The notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act was kept pending from 16. 1975 onwards. (iv) There is violation of Rule 3(b) of the rules. On the date of enquiry on 11. 1990, the second respondent was not present during enquiry. The enquiry was. fixed on 15. 1990 under Rule 3(B) and the petitioners had submitted their objections. The notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act was kept pending from 16. 1975 onwards. (iv) There is violation of Rule 3(b) of the rules. On the date of enquiry on 11. 1990, the second respondent was not present during enquiry. The enquiry was. fixed on 15. 1990 under Rule 3(B) and the petitioners had submitted their objections. The remarks of the requisition department have not been communicated to the petitioners and the enquiry was not a detailed enquiry and so, the enquiry is against the principles laid down under Rule 3(b) and (c) of the Rules, (v) Further enquiry cannot be held by the second respondent since he becomes functus officio as the declaration under Sec.6 has not been made within one year as per the amended Act and hence the notification under Sec.4(1) is invalid, (vi) The acquisition for independent Corporation though owned by the Government, should be by invoking Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act and in this case, the acquisition proceedings resorted to under Part II of the Act is unsustainable. This Court quashed the declaration under Sec.6 of the Act on 21. 1988. Despite that till now they have not taken any action pursuant to the notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act and there was no detailed enquiry under Sec.5(a) of the Act. It is more than 14 years since Notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act was passed for the alleged purpose of housing scheme. A Division Bench of this Court has held in The Special Deputy Collector (L.A.) v. Kuppa Gounder, 1985 W.L.R. 694, as follows: “The award enquiry was sought to be held more than fourteen years after the notification under Sec.4(1). The delay is inordinate and it will be wholly unjust to the first respondent in each appeal to receive the compensation at rates passed to the market condition prevailing in 1964” The same view has also been expressed in 1990 L.A.C.C. 613. (vii) The notification issued under Sec.4(1) of the Act in respect of the lands situate in Koyambedu and Nerkundram Village published in the official gazette on 11. 1975 was for the purpose of the Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar Extension Scheme and the declaration and direction made under Sec.6 of the Act published in the official gazette on 29. 1978 and 6. 1978 was for the purpose staled in the notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act. 1975 was for the purpose of the Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar Extension Scheme and the declaration and direction made under Sec.6 of the Act published in the official gazette on 29. 1978 and 6. 1978 was for the purpose staled in the notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act. The declaration under Sec.6 of the Act evidences that the land is needed for a public purpose. The Government approved in G.O.Ms.No.125 Housing Department date 20.1.1978, acquisition of the lands in Koyambedu and Nerkundram Village and and Secs.3(c) and 7 Notification of the Act published in the Government Gazette on 211. 1979 for Block Nos.III to IX of Nerkundram Village was at the instance of the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority as it has required the lands for their textile market etc., which lands had earlier been notified and declared as required for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 9. 1975, 16. 1975,29. 1978 and 6. 1978. Hence, the order of the Government directing the proposed acquisition in favour of the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority for a different purpose and for the use of different requisitioning body, is improper. (viii)The petitioners filed W.P.No.16127 of 1991 for leave to raise additional grounds to the writ petition which runs as follows: “The petitioner states that in the Gazette notification published in 4(1) Notification and Sec.6 declaration relating to the petitioner’s land does not clearly mention what is the public purpose and whose purpose of the land is required has not been staled. It has been stated clear in Thiruvaleeswarar Temple, Nerkundram v. The State of Tamil Nadu, (1990)1 M.L.J. 149, that the 4(1) Notification is vague in nature and not descriptive. 4(1) notification has to be quashed.” After hearing the learned Government Pleader, this writ miscellaneous petition is allowed. 4. The respondents have not filed any counter affidavit to this writ petition and the files were produced by the learned Government Pleader at the time of hearing and the files were perused. 5.. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act was published in the Official Gazette on 16. 1975 that the declaration under Sec.6 of the Act was published on 6. 1978 and that the declaration under Sec.6 of the Act was quashed on 21. 1988 in respect of the lands in question in W.P.Nos.2733, 2734 and 2735 of 1983. 1975 that the declaration under Sec.6 of the Act was published on 6. 1978 and that the declaration under Sec.6 of the Act was quashed on 21. 1988 in respect of the lands in question in W.P.Nos.2733, 2734 and 2735 of 1983. According to the petitioners, the publication of the substance of the notification itself is very vague and it does not reveal the actual purpose and according to the Housing Board Act, the scheme has not been formulated as reported in State of Tamil Nadu and another v. A.Mohammed Yousuf and others, (1991)3 S.C. 347, (S.L.P.No.3790of 1991). The other ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that Notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act was published on 16. 1975 and the declaration under Sec.6 of the Act was published on 6. 1978 and that the declaration under Sec.6 of the Act was quashed in W.P.No.2734 of 1983 on 21. 1988. Construing the period of three years from Sec.4(1) notification i.e. from 16. 1975, the declaration under Sec.6 of the Act ought to have been passed from the date of quashing Sec.6 declaration i.e. from 21. 1988. On 21. 1988 Sec.6 Declaration had to be published as reported in A.S.Naidu and others v. State of Tamil Nadu, S.L.P.No.l1353/55 of 1988. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of this Court dated 10. 1991 in W.P.No.3693 of 1985 etc. batch. The learned Judge (Govindasamy, J.) has considered all the grounds which are similarly raised in this writ petition and ultimately held that the notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act suffers from the vices of vagueness, lack of particulars etc. In that view, the above said batch of writ petitions were allowed. 7. Learned Government Pleader could not support the Notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act issued by the respondents in respect of the lands in question and even the files do not show that there is any clarity in the notification in view of the ratio of the Supreme Court followed by this Court in the above said batch of writ petitions. Learned Government Pleader could not support the Notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act issued by the respondents in respect of the lands in question and even the files do not show that there is any clarity in the notification in view of the ratio of the Supreme Court followed by this Court in the above said batch of writ petitions. In this view, I find that the notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act is not in accordance with law, that the publication of the substance of the notification was not published in the locality immediately, and that the declaration under Sec.6 of the Act was not passed within the period as laid down under the Act. Therefore, the respondents have not passed the declaration under Sec.6 of the Act till now even though the notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act was published on 16. 1975. In this view, the impugned Government order of the first respondent is therefore, quashed and the writ petition is allowed. In the circumstances, there is no order as to costs.