JUDGMENT 1. These four special appeals are against the decision of this Court, dated 16th November, 1992, by which the writ petitions, out of which the present appeals have arisen along with 5 other writ petitions, were disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The facts necessary for the present purposes may be stated briefly - the subject matter of challenge is notification dated 4th January, 1993 (Annx. 1), issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in respect of land situated in chuck No. 5 JSL and/or chuck No. 8 JSL, of Tehsil Bhadra, in district Sriganganagar. The validity of this notification Annx. 1 in the writ petition, was challenged by the petitioner-appellants. The notification was challenged on the ground of vagueness as it fails to describe the land sought to be acquired with sufficient clarity and it is not possible to identify the land sought to be acquired. It was also challenged on the ground that the Collector has failed to give notice of the substance of the notification at any convenient place in the said locality and that the publication of the notification under Section 4 in the two newspapers as required by Section 4 has not followed the publication in the official gazette and prepublication in the newspapers does not satisfy the conditions of manner of publication of the notification under Section 4. It was further contended by the petitioners that as the land which has been the subject matter of acquisition under challenge, has already been taken possession of by the respondents and there is ,to dispute also that the purpose for which it has been acquired is a public purpose and most of the land has been put to use; the cancellation of the impugned notification will not bring the matter to an end. Even if the acquisition is found to be bad, fresh proceedings may be taken after curing the defects pointed out by the petitioners and that would result in consequence, the advancing of the date with reference to which compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 will be fixed, therefore, this Court instead of quashing the notification, adopted the course, as adopted by their Lordships of Supreme Court in Ujjain Vkas Pradhikaran v. Rajkumar Johri and Ors., AIR 1992 SC 1538 . 3. 3. Learned Single Judge found that the notification does not suffer from any defect, as contended by the petitioners and consequently, no occasion arise for giving the relief in terms of Ujjain Vkas Pradhikaran's case (supra) 4. In the appeals before us, the same grounds have been raised. It may be appropriate to reproduce Section 4, 5-A and 6(1) of the Act of 1894: "4. Publication of preliminary notification and powers of officers thereupon- (1) Whenever, it appears to the appropriate Government that land in any locality is needed for any public purpose of 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 given 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. (2) Thereupon, it shall be lawful for any officer, either generally or specially authorised by such Government in this behalf, and for his servants and workmen- to enter upon and survey and take levels of any land in such locality; to dig or bore into the sub-soil; to do all other acts necessary to ascertain whether the land is adapted for such purpose; to set out the boundaries of the land proposed to be taken and the intended line of work (if any) proposed to be made thereon); to mark such levels, boundaries and line by placing marks and cutting trenches; and where otherwise the survey cannot be completed, and the levels taken and the boundaries and line marked, to cut down and clear away any part of any standing crop, fence or jungle: Provided that no person shall enter any building or upon any enclosed court or garden attached to a dwelling-house unless with the consent of the occupier thereof) without previously giving such occupier at least seven days' notice in writing of his intention to do so. 5-A. Hearing of Objections.-(1) Any person interested in any land which has been notified under section 4, sub-section (1), as being needed for likely to be needed for a public purpose or for a Company may, within thirty days from the date of the publication of the notification, object to the acquisition of the land or of any land in the locality (emphasis added), as the case may be. (2) Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the Collector in writing, and the Collector shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard in person or by any person authorised by him in this behalf or by pleader and shall, after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, either makes a report in respect of the land which has been notified under Section 4, sub-section (1), or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land, to the appropriate Government, containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by him, for the decision of that Government. The decision of the appropriate Government on the objections shall be final. (3) For the purpose of this section, a person shall be deemed to be interested in the land who would be entitled to claim an interest in compensation if the land were acquired under this Act. 6. Declaration that land is required for a public purpose. The decision of the appropriate Government on the objections shall be final. (3) For the purpose of this section, a person shall be deemed to be interested in the land who would be entitled to claim an interest in compensation if the land were acquired under this Act. 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 may be 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 (wherever required) under Section 5-A, sub-section (2) : Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification under Section 4, sub-section (1),- (i) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967 (1 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 : Provided further that no such declaration shall be made unless the compensation to be awarded for such property is to be paid by a Company, or wholly or partly out of public 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 period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the notification issued under Section 4, sub-section (1), is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded. Explanation 1.-In computing any of the periods referred to in the first proviso, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the notification issued under Section 4, sub-section (1), is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded. Explanation 2.-Where the compensation to be awarded for such property is to be paid out of the funds of a corporation owned or controlled by the State, such compensation sh,11 be deemed to be compensation paid out of public revenues." 5. It is settled law that the notification under Section 4 sets the proceedings of acquisition on rails. Being foundation of the Acquisition proceedings, a valid notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894, in all respects, is a sine qua non for sustaining the acquisition proceedings. The language of Section 4 is suggestive of the fact that at the stage of publication of notification under Section 4, the precise land sought to be acquired need not have been decided upon and, what is required to be determined before issuance of notification under Section 4 is the 'locality' in which the land is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose. The publication of notification under Section 4 makes it lawful for any officer authorised in this behalf and any servant or workman of such officer to enter upon and survey such land in such locality to find out whether the land is adapted for such purpose and, to set out the boundaries of the land proposed to be acquired. 6. Thus, from the very scheme of the provisions of Section 4, at that stage, the very specific land in the locality need not have been identified for the purpose of acquisition. The determination of a locality within which the land is sought to be acquired, is sufficient for commencement of the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. Section 5-A which is the provision that confers right to any person interested in the land to raise objection to such proposed acquisition within 30 days of the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4, also envisages objection to acquisition of 'the land' or of 'any land', in the locality notified, as the case may be. Section 5-A which is the provision that confers right to any person interested in the land to raise objection to such proposed acquisition within 30 days of the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4, also envisages objection to acquisition of 'the land' or of 'any land', in the locality notified, as the case may be. This provision emphasises this fact that where a specific land is specified in a notification under Section 4, the objection to acquisition may be taken in respect of that specified land by the person interested in such land and, where the specific land has not been described in the notification, then objection may be taken as to the acquisition of any land in the locality by persons interested in the land in that locality. This is out by use of words 'the' and 'any', in the alternative, regarding land in respect of which objections can be raised. 7. it may further be noticed that after survey of the land in pursuance of notification under Section 4 is made, and an inquiry under Section 5-A is held; if the same has not been dispensed with, before the land can be acquired, a declaration under Section 6 has to follow in the manner prescribed. It is requirement of Section 6 that the same is issued after the appropriate Government is satisfied - "that any particular land is needed for a public purpose". The distinction is marked. The necessary precondition for a notification under Section 4 is - "whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose". The stage of particularising the land for acquisition reaches after notification under Section 4 but before declaration under Section 6, where the satisfaction is about the need of 'any particular land' is required. Therefore, what is required under Section 4 is the description of locality, as distinguished from description of any particular land. 8. The stage of particularising the land for acquisition reaches after notification under Section 4 but before declaration under Section 6, where the satisfaction is about the need of 'any particular land' is required. Therefore, what is required under Section 4 is the description of locality, as distinguished from description of any particular land. 8. That is also the law enunciated by their Lordships of Supreme Court, in Babu Barkya Thakur v. State of Bombay (now Maharashtra) and Ors., AIR 1960 SC 1203 ; wherein their Lordships observed : ".....The purpose of the notification under S. 4 is to carry on a preliminary investigation with a view to finding out after necessary survey and taking of levels, and, if necessary, digging or boring into the sub-soil whether the land was adapted for the purpose for which it was sought to be acquired. It is only under S. 6 that a firm declaration has to be made by Government that land with proper description and area so as to be identifiable is needed for a public purpose or for a Company. What was a mere proposal under S. 4 becomes the subject matter of a definite proceedings for acquisition under the Act..... ." 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the aforesaid proposition was impliedly overruled by their Lordships of Supreme Court in Narendrajit Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. etc., AIR 1971 SC 306 . Having carefully considered, we are unable to accede to this contention. On the contrary, in Narendrajit's case (supra), their Lordships reiterated that duty under Section 4. is to specify the locality in which the land is needed, by observing : "Section 4(1) does not required that the identity of the lands which may ultimately be acquired should be specified but it enjoins upon the Government the duty to specify the locality in which the land is needed.... " 10. In Narendrajit's case (supra), the notification under section 4 did not disclose the name of the district, Pargana, Mauja nor approximate area, for which acquisition proceedings were initiated; but it was left for people to guess as to which land is sought to be acquired in which locality, by putting a note that the plan of the land may be inspected in the office of the Collector, Rampur. The description of the land, as re-produced in the report was as under: District Pargana Mauza Approximate area For what purpose required For the rehabilitation of displaced formalities from East Pakistan, under the Ministry of Rehabilitation, Government of India. "SCHEDULE NOTE.-The plan of the land may be inspected in the office of the Collector, Rampur." 11. In the declaration under section 6, District, Pargana, Mauza and approximate area sought to be acquired, were stated in the notification. It was in that state of affairs that their Lordships came to the conclusion that locality where the land were needed, was not specified. Their Lordships held as under : "...As no details were given, the only indication about the locality of the lands was possibly the District of Rampur inasmuch as the plan of the land was to be found in the office of the Collector of the same District. Certainly the Act did not intend that all the persons owning land in a district should rash to the Collector's office to find out whether his lands were covered by the notification." 12. This clearly goes against the appellants, inasmuch as it states in no uncertain terms that notification under section 4(1) does not require the identity of the 'land', which may ultimately be acquired, to be disclosed but enjoins upon the Government duty to specify the 'locality' in which the land is needed. 13. However, the question still remains as to what description of locality satisfy the test of a valid notification under Section 4. It cannot also be doubted that the purpose of issuance of notification under Section 4 is two-fold-firstly; to authorise the officers of the Department or other bodies for which acquisition is made, to enter upon the land and make a survey as to suitability of the land and demarcating the exact land which is proposed to be acquired and in respect of which, later on, declaration under Section 6 can be made. Any description of locality, that fails short to fulfil these twin objections, must, in our opinion, fails the test of description of locality in precise terms. 14. In Madhya Pradesh Housing Board v. Mohd. Shaft and Ors. Any description of locality, that fails short to fulfil these twin objections, must, in our opinion, fails the test of description of locality in precise terms. 14. In Madhya Pradesh Housing Board v. Mohd. Shaft and Ors. etc, 1992 (I) SVLR (Civ) 141 , their Lordships of Supreme Court alluding to the very same problem, observed as under: "It is settled law that the process of acquisition has to start with a notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, which is mandatory, and even in cases of urgency, the issuance of notification under Section 4 is a condition precedent to the exercise of any further powers under the Act. Any notification which is aimed at depriving a man of his property, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act has to be strictly construed and any serious lapse on the part of the acquiring authority would vitiate the proceedings and cannot be ignored by the courts. The object of issuing a notification under Section 4 of the Act is two-fold. First, it is a public announcement by the Government and a public notice by the Collector to the effect that the land, as specified therein (emphasis added) is needed or is likely to be needed by the Government for the "public purpose" mentioned therein; and secondly, it authorises the departmental officers of the local authority, as the case may be, to do all such acts as are mentioned in Section 4(2) of the Act. The notification has to be published in the locality and particularly persons likely to be affected by the proposal have to be put on notice that such an activity is afoot. The notification is, thus, required to give with sufficient clarity not only the "public purpose" for which the acquisition proceedings are being commenced but also the "locality" where the land is situate with as full description as possible of the land proposed to be acquired to enable the "interested" persons to know as to which land is being acquired (emphasis added) and for what purpose and to take further steps under the Act by filing objection etc.; since it is open to such person to canvass the non-suitability of the land for the alleged "public purpose" also. If a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is defective and does not comply with the requirement of the Act, it not only vitiates the notification, but also renders all subsequent proceedings connected with the acquisition, bad." Their Lordships went on to the observe while alluding to the facts of the case : "The description of the land in the notification issued under Section 4(1) and 17(1), in our opinion, is very cryptic. Not only no khasra numbers have been given, even the precise "locality" has not been indicated. Mere mention of Mandsaur, which is spread over an area of 25 sq. kms. and is divided into various municipal wards, against the "locality" is wholly insufficient description and the respondent or anyone else could not have come to know from the description whether 2.298 hectares of land which was required for acquisition included the land belong to him or not. The non-disclosure of the "locality" with precision, invalidates the notification (emphasis supplied)...." 15. The ratio of the aforesaid decision makes it abundantly clear that mere mention of a place wherein the land sought to be acquired is situated, irrespective of surrounding circumstances; is not sufficient compliance of notification under section 4 of the Act. The 'locality' where the land is situated, must be described with as a full description as possible, of the land proposed to be acquired to enable the interested persons to know as to which land is being acquired. Precision in description of 'locality' which is sufficient to identify the land within a reasonable proximity to fulfil the twin object of publication of the notification under section 4, is the requirement and any notification falling short thereof, must be held to be invalid. 16. It was argued by learned counsel for the respondents that a case of a city must be distinguished from case of a village. Since the M.P. Housing Board's case (supra) related to acquisition of land of Mandsaur 'city', and the notification without prescribing the locality precisely, was held to be bad; the same principle ought not to be applied in a case where a 'village' in Tehsil has been described as locality; as in the present case. 17. Since the M.P. Housing Board's case (supra) related to acquisition of land of Mandsaur 'city', and the notification without prescribing the locality precisely, was held to be bad; the same principle ought not to be applied in a case where a 'village' in Tehsil has been described as locality; as in the present case. 17. This contention of learned counsel for the respondents cannot be accepted, that, as a rule, where a 'village' has been described as a locality, the precision required in the description of locality need not further be looked into. In this connection, it may be noticed that various factors has to be taken into consideration which makes the description of a locality a precise one or a vague. Apart from the total area of the locality described, and the population living therein, it may also be relevant to know the ratio between the area sought to be acquired with the area covered by the description of the locality, for arriving at a proper conclusion whether the description given in notification under section 4 for acquisition from the locality satisfy the precision in its description, required under section 4 of the Act. In some cases, the purpose for which land is required may also be relevant in this regard. No exhaustive list of factors can be enumerated. Thus, whether description of 'locality' in a notification under section 4(1) satisfies the test of precision, depend on facts of each case. 18. Applying the principles discussed above, to the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that 'locality' in which land intended to be acquired has been described in the notification in question, with sufficient clarity. It will be relevant to reproduce the notification, placed on record as Annx. 1 . 18. Applying the principles discussed above, to the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that 'locality' in which land intended to be acquired has been described in the notification in question, with sufficient clarity. It will be relevant to reproduce the notification, placed on record as Annx. 1 . ( [k ) & vkxs jktLFkku ljdkj ?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd bl foKkfIr esa /kkjk 4 dh mi/kkjk ( 3 ) ds vUrxZr mijksDr eq[; okMZ dks lhekvksa ls ysdj uxjikfydk dk lEiw.kZ {ks= ekdsZV izksij gksxk tSlk fd jktLFkku d`f"k mit vf/kfu;e] 1961 dks /kkjk 2 dh mi/kkjk ( 1 ) ds [k.M 10 ds vUrxZr ifjHkkf"kr gSaA vkKk ls vthr dqekj flag 'kklu mi lfpo flapkbZ foHkkx foKkfIr t;iqj] tuojh 4] 1991 la[;k 210% & pwafd jkT; ljdkj dks ,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd jkT; fgr esa jkT; 'kiFk ij lkoZtfud ekxZ vokfIr fl)eq[k QhMj ( jktLFkku ) ds fy;s Hkwfe vokIr fd;k tkuk vko';d gSa] og foKkfIr fd;k gS fd uhps of.kZr bykds dh Hkwfe dks mDr iz;kstukFkZ gSa vko';d gSaA ;g foKkfIr dsUnzh; Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kfu;e] 1894 dh /kkjk 4 ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj mu lc fgrdkfj;ksa ftl tkjh dks tkrh gS ftldk blls lEcU/k gSaA mDr /kkjk esa iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gqos jkT; ljdkj mu leLr vf/kdkfj;ksa dks ftudk lEcU/k gSa dks dqN le; ds fy;s vius ys[kdksa ,oa Jfedksa lfgr ml {ks= esa izos'k djus] losZ{k.k djus o tkWap djus gsrq vf/kd`r djrh gS] tks mDr /kkjk esa n'kkZ;sa x;s gSaA dksbZ fgrdkjh O;fDr ftls fuEukafdr {ks= dh Hkwfe vokfIr djus ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ vkifRr gks rks foKkfIr ds izdkf'kr gksus ls 30 fnu ds vUnj viuh vkifRr fyf[kr esa dysUMj] Jh xaxkuxj dks izLrqr dj ldrk gSA &% fooj.k %& dze la0 ftyk rglhy pd ua0@bykdk {ks=Qy 1 Jh xaxkuxj Hkknjk fHkjkuh 179 ch?kk 2 Jh xaxkuxj Hkknjk 5 ts0,l0,y0 336 ch?kk 3 Jh xaxkuxj Hkknjk 8 ts0,l0,y0 180 ch?kk 4 Jh xaxkuxj Hkknjk lkxMk 20 ch?kk 5 Jh xaxkuxj Hkknjk 3 ,0,l0,e0 269 ch?kk gk0,l0lh0 esgrk mi 'kklu lfpr] vf/k{k.k vfHk;Urk] izk0 eq[; vfHk;Urk] flapkbZ] jkt0 t;iqjA 19. From the above notification, it is clear that acquisition was for the public purpose of construction of Sidhpur feeder. For that purpose, land situated in villages Bhirani, 5 JSL, 8 JSL, Sagda and 3 ASM were sought to be acquired. From the above notification, it is clear that acquisition was for the public purpose of construction of Sidhpur feeder. For that purpose, land situated in villages Bhirani, 5 JSL, 8 JSL, Sagda and 3 ASM were sought to be acquired. Area of land required from each village was shown. Regarding Sidhpur Canal Project, it was clear averment of respondents in additional plea of their return to Writ Petition No. 170/91-Hawa Singh v. State and Ors. , that : "....The construction of this Canal came out about 35 years ago and a preliminary survey was made and relative distance Stones (R.D.) were put in the fields of various persons including the petitioner. These stones are No. 46 and 47. This makes it clear that petitioner is fully aware that which of his land is going to be acquired (emphasis added). This project was approved by the Central Water Commission, New Delhi and Planning Commission in 1990 and was also sanctioned by the Government of Rajasthan...." 20. Similar averments have been made in separate returns filed to each petitions in question; giving separate numbers of R.D. stones existing in fields of respective petitioners. The averments have not been replied to. 21. From the above, it is apparent that proximate area through which canal was to be constructed, was already demarcated on site before the notification under section 4 was issued. The residents of villages concerned were aware about the area through which the Feeder canal is likely to be constructed. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, description of villages as locality with measurements of land sought to be acquired related to purpose for which it was being acquired, gave a clear indication about the identity of locality within proximity of which the acquisition is sought to be made. That was sufficient to enable the person interested in land to raise objection to such acquisition of any 'particular land' or 'any land', situated in the locality of demarcated area of Sidhpur canal under section 5- A of the Act. Failure to disclose Khasra number or other particulars of land in the impugned notification, in our opinion, did not make the notification bad for vagueness. It is not a case where only 2.98 hectares of land was sought to be acquired from a locality of 25 sq. kms. Failure to disclose Khasra number or other particulars of land in the impugned notification, in our opinion, did not make the notification bad for vagueness. It is not a case where only 2.98 hectares of land was sought to be acquired from a locality of 25 sq. kms. disclosed in the notification, inviting 80,000 inhabitants to grope in the realm of guessing about locating the land likely to be acquired; as was the case in M.P. Housing Board's case (supra). 22. Coming to second contention, that publication of the substance of notification under section 4 of the Act by the Collector at convenient places of the locality, was not made; learned Single Judge has rejected the contention of the petitioner on the ground that this allegation has been refuted by the respondents on affidavit and it was averred that the provisions in this regard have been complied with. We find no reason to take a different view on this ground. 23. Lastly, it was contended by learned counsel for the appellants that it is apparent from the facts that have come on record that the publication of the notification under section 4 in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality, has taken prior to its publication in the Official Gazette. According to learned counsel, the publication in daily newspapers circulating in the locality, must follow the publication in the official Gazette. As admittedly no notification under section 4 was published in daily newspapers after its publication in the official Gazette, there was no valid publication of the notification, in accordance with the provisions of Section 4. In this connection, he placed reliance on Collector (District Magistrate) Allahahad and Another. v. Rajaram Jaiswal, (1985) 3 SCC 1 and also on the provision of the General Clauses Act, which, according to him, makes it imperative that the notification becomes a notification only on its publication in Official Gazette and only thereafter, it can be used for any other purposes. 24. Having carefully examined the contention, we are unable to accede to this contention also. It may be noticed that notification under Section 4 is not legislative in nature but is intended to notify a executive decision, about intention of the State to acquire land in a locality for a public purpose. The manner of publication of such notification has been prescribed in that section itself. It may be noticed that notification under Section 4 is not legislative in nature but is intended to notify a executive decision, about intention of the State to acquire land in a locality for a public purpose. The manner of publication of such notification has been prescribed in that section itself. Before it was amended, in 1984, by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984; the only mode prescribed for the publication under the Act was in the Official Gazette and after publication of such notification, substance of such notification was to be given by a public notice at convenience places in the said locality by the Collector. However, after the amendment, mode of publication of the notification under section 4 has been made three-fold : (i) in the Official Gazette, and (ii) in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality. 25. Section 4 further makes it very clear that last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice, be the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4. This also clearly makes a distinction between causing of public notice by the Collector on the one hand, and the publication in the Official Gazette and in two daily newspapers; on the other. Statute has not chosen to give any order or precedence in the publication amongst the Official Gazette and two daily newspapers, but has postulated the last of the dates of the publication in any of the three mediums, and or/giving of public notice, will be the date of the publication or the notification. This clearly goes to show that amongst the three mediums of publication of the notification, under Section 4, there is no precedence. Therefore, we find no force in the contention of learned counsel that because the publication in the daily newspapers has preceded the publication in the Official Gazette, the notification under Section 4 has not been published in accordance with Section 4. 26. The decision in Rajaram Jaiswal's case (supra), is not a decision on the point as to cut of three mediums in which the notification under Section 4 is required to be published, which must precede. That was a case in which the question about the giving of public notice of the substance of notification under Section 4 had arisen. 26. The decision in Rajaram Jaiswal's case (supra), is not a decision on the point as to cut of three mediums in which the notification under Section 4 is required to be published, which must precede. That was a case in which the question about the giving of public notice of the substance of notification under Section 4 had arisen. It was in the context of public notice in the locality of such notification referred to in the later part of Section 4(1), their Lordships held as under : "....The expression 'such notification' in the later part of Section 4(1) and sequence of events therein enumerated would clearly spell out that first the Government should reach a decision to acquire land, then publish a notification under Section 4(1) and simultaneously or within a reasonable time from the date of the publication of the notification cause a notice to be published containing substant of such notification meaning thereby that notification which is published. Obviously, therefore, there cannot be a publication in the locality prior to the issuance of the notification. The submission of Mr. Kacker does not commend to us." 27. It may be noticed that reference to publication in the Official Gazette have been made in the light of provisions, as they existed prior to amendment of 1984 in the Act, inasmuch as, the case related to before the amending provisions, have came into force. As has been noticed above, prior to Amendment Act of 1984, the only mode provided for publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act, was publication in the Official Gazette whereas now mode of publication is in the Official Gazette as well as in two daily newspapers, that is to say, the full notification has to be published in all the three modes. However, amongst the three modes ordained for publication which should precede, was not the question before their Lordships of Supreme Court in Rajaram Jaiswal's case (supra), nor the Statute had made any provision. Therefore, the decision does not lend support to the appellants. 28. However, amongst the three modes ordained for publication which should precede, was not the question before their Lordships of Supreme Court in Rajaram Jaiswal's case (supra), nor the Statute had made any provision. Therefore, the decision does not lend support to the appellants. 28. In the absence of any specific provision, and keeping in view the provisions that last of the dates of publication in the manner and causing of public notice by the Collector, is the date of the publication of the notification for the purposes of the Act, makes it abundantly clear that no order of precedence amongst the three modes for publication as different from causing of public notice by the Collector can be fixed. 29. What is required is, it should have been published in all the modes prescribed and substance of it should also have been given by a public notice by the Collector, before the publication of the notification can be said to be complete. 30. Thus, we do not find merit in any of the contentions raised before us by the appellants. 31. As we have not found any defect in the notification under Section 4(1) in question, the further question of following the course adopted in Ujjain Pradhikaran's case (supra) AIR 1992 SC 1538 ), does not arise for consideration. 32. As a result, we are in agreement with the learned Single Judge about the face of these petitions. Consequently, all the appeals fail and are hereby dismissed. 33. These will be no order as to costs of the appeals.Appeal dismissed. *******