JUDGMENT - A.P. SHAH, J.:---Rule. Mr. Malvankar, learned A.G.P., waives service for the respondents. By consent, petition is placed on board for final hearing. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the Maharashtra Resettlement of Displaced Persons Act, 1976 read with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which have culminated in an award dated December 14, 1987 under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act. 3. Mr. Mengane, learned Counsel appearing in support of the petition, raised only one contention. Mr. Mengane urged that there is a violation of section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act. According to learned Counsel, the award has been passed after two years from the publication of declaration under section 6 and as such, it is a nullity. 4. Before dealing with the contention of the learned Counsel, few relevant facts are required to be stated. Petitioners' land admeasuring 1 hectare and 62 ares from out of Gat No. 115 situated at Ankalkhop sought to be acquired for the purpose of resettlement of the persons affected by Warna Project. Notification under section 4(1) was published in the Government Gazette on September 27, 1984. The gist of the said notification was published by public notices at the convenient places in the locality on October 22, 1984. In pursuance of notice issued to the petitioner under section 4(1), the petitioner filed his objections. The Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 10, Sangli, upon consideration of the objections raised by the petitioner, issued declaration under section 6, which came to be published in the Government Gazette on September 24, 1985. The said declaration was published in newspapers in the locality on November 2, 1985 and a public notice of the substance of the notification was given at convenient places in the locality on December 15, 1985. The award was passed on December, 14, 1987. 5. The said declaration was published in newspapers in the locality on November 2, 1985 and a public notice of the substance of the notification was given at convenient places in the locality on December 15, 1985. The award was passed on December, 14, 1987. 5. The relevant provisions of the Act are section 11-A and section 6(2) and the said provisions read as follows : "Section 11-A: Period within which an award shall be made : The Collector shall make an award under section 11 within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse; Provided that in a case where the said declaration has been published before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, the award shall be made within a period of two years from such commencement. Explanation.---In computing the period of two years referred to in this section, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the said declaration is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded." "Section 6(2) : Every declaration shall be published in the Official Gazette the district or other territorial division in which the land is situated, the purpose for which it is needed, its approximate area, and where a plan shall have been made of the land, the place where such plan may be inspected. A combined reading of section 11-A and section 6(2) clearly shows that for the purpose of computation of the period of two years under section 11-A, the date of last publication under section 6(2) is the relevant date. The award must be passed within the period of two years from that date. We are fortified in our view by the decision of Madras High Court in (Ouamruddin v. Municipal Administration and Water Supply Dept., State of T.N.)1, 1990(1) Madras Law Journal 353. In the present case, the last public notice of the declaration was given on December 15, 1985. The impugned award was passed on December 14, 1987 i.e. within the statutory period of two years. 6. Mr. In the present case, the last public notice of the declaration was given on December 15, 1985. The impugned award was passed on December 14, 1987 i.e. within the statutory period of two years. 6. Mr. Mengane then contended that in view of our interpretation that the date of the last public notice of the declaration under section 6 i.e. December 15, 1985 is the relevant date under section 6(2), it must be held that there is a violation of proviso to section 6(1) inasmuch as the declaration under section 6 is not issued within one year from the last date of public notice of section 4 notification. Mr. Mengane urged that the last date of public notice of section 4 notification is October 22, 1984 and, therefore, the declaration under section 6 ought to have been issued on or before October 22, 1985. According to learned Counsel, the last public notice of the declaration, which is December 15, 1985, must be deemed to be the date of declaration and since it is after a period of one year, the declaration as well as the subsequent acquisition proceedings including the award are bad in law. It is not possible to accede to the arguments of learned Counsel. We are afraid that the point raised by the learned Counsel is squarely covered by a latest decision of the Supreme Court in (Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Makrand Singh)2, (1995)2 Supreme Court Cases 497. The Supreme Court held that the limitation prescribed under proviso (i) to section 6(1) must be computed from the last of the dates of publication of notification under section 4(1) to the date of publication of declaration under section 6 in the Official Gazette and not publication of the notification in the newspapers or public notice thereof in the locality. Similar argument that the last of the dates of publication of declaration should be taken as the date of declaration for the purpose of computing the period of limitation between the notifications under sections 4 and 6 was rejected by the Supreme Court. Similar argument that the last of the dates of publication of declaration should be taken as the date of declaration for the purpose of computing the period of limitation between the notifications under sections 4 and 6 was rejected by the Supreme Court. After examining the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act, the Supreme Court held that the last date under section 6(2) shall be the date not for the purposes of computing the period of three years prescribed in Clause (i) of proviso to section 6(1) of the Act, as it was already done, but purposes to be followed thereafter i.e. for making the declaration published in the prescribed manner, to be conclusive evidence of the public purpose under section 6(1) and also to provide limitation to make the award under section 11 by the Collector. In paragraphs 4 and 5 of the judgment, the Supreme Court observed : "4. The question, therefore, is that which date of the publications in three steps i.e. publication in the Gazette, two newspapers and local publication to be the last date for the purpose of computing three years' limitation prescribed in Clause (i) of the proviso to section 6(1) of the Act. Prima facie, it gives an impression that the last of any of the three steps puts in motion, the running of limitation of three years. But on deeper probe, it does not appear to be so and such a construction would easily defeat the public purpose and deflects the course of justice. So it is necessary to understand the scheme and policy of the Act to get the crux of the question. It is seen that sub-section (1) of section 4 gives power of eminent domain to the State to acquire the land, whenever it appears to it that the land is needed or likely to be needed for any public purpose or for any company, by a notification published in the Official Gazette and two daily newspapers circulating in that area and at least one of them should be in the regional language and also the Collector is enjoined to cause public notice of the substance of notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality in which the land is situated. It is also mentioned thereunder that the last date of such publication and the giving of such public notice "being hereinafter referred to " as the date of publication of the notification. It would be seen that the purpose of notification under section 4(1) is an intimation to the owner or person having an interest in the land that Government exercised the power of eminent domain in relation to his land and for public purpose his land is needed or likely to be needed; puts an embargo on his freedom to deal with the land as an unencumbered land and also pegs the price of the land prevailing as on that date. It also is a caveat to the Collector to make the award under section 11 as well as to determine the market value prevailing as on the last of the dates to be the date and the award should be made within a period prescribed by section 11-A, lest the entire acquisition shall stand lapsed. The word 'hereinafter' is for such purposes as well as for the purpose of determination of the compensation under Chapter III of the Act as well. Therefore, the word 'hereinafter' referred to as the last date of the publication of the notification is the date from which the prevailing prices of the land is to be computed etc. "5. Clause (i) of the proviso to section 6(1) mandates the publication of the declaration in the Official Gazette and it should be within three years from the date of the publication of the notification under section 4(1) i.e. the last of the dates referred to in section 4(1). The word 'publish' emphasises the act accomplished i.e. declaration under section 6(1) being published in the Official Gazette. The last date under section 6(2) shall be the date for the purposes "hereinafter referred to" would be not for computing the period of three years prescribed in Clause (i) of proviso to section 6(1) of the Act as it was already done, but purposes to be followed hereinafter. Otherwise language would have been "hereinbefore done". The last date under section 6(2) shall be the date for the purposes "hereinafter referred to" would be not for computing the period of three years prescribed in Clause (i) of proviso to section 6(1) of the Act as it was already done, but purposes to be followed hereinafter. Otherwise language would have been "hereinbefore done". Sub-section (2) as such did not prescribe any limitation within which the declaration under section 6(1) or other steps hereinafter to be taken, in other words, the steps to be taken thereafter in making the award under section 11 or in computation of the period prescribed in section 11-A. The publication of the declaration in two daily newspapers having circulation in the locality one of which is in the regional language and the publication of the substance of the declaration in the locality are ministerial acts and is a procedural part. It appears that these publications are required to be done to make the declaration published in the manner, to be conclusive evidence of the public purpose under section 6(1) and also to provide limitation to make the award under section 11 by the Collector. In other words, the limitation prescribed under section 11-A is for the purpose of making the award and if the Collector fails to do so, the entire proceeds under sections 4(1) and 6(1) shall stand lapsed. If this consistent policy of the Act is understood giving teeth to the operational efficacy to the scheme of the Act and public purpose the Act seeks to serve, we are of the considered view that publication in the Official Gazette already made under Clause (i) of proviso to sub-section (1) of section 6 is complete, as soon as the declaration under section 6(1) was published in the Official Gazette. That will be the date for the purpose of computation of three years' period from the last of the dates of the publication of the notification under section 4(1). The procedural ministerial acts prescribed under sub-section (2) are only for the purpose of the procedure to be followed 'hereinafter', in other words, the steps to be taken subsequent to the publication of the declaration under section 6(1) of the Act. ....." In this case, the last of the dates of publication under section 4 is October 22, 1984 and the date of publication of the declaration in Gazette is September 24, 1985. ....." In this case, the last of the dates of publication under section 4 is October 22, 1984 and the date of publication of the declaration in Gazette is September 24, 1985. Thus, the declaration under section 6 has been made within the prescribed period of one year. The dates of publication of such declaration in the local newspapers and at the convenient places in the locality are relevant for the purpose of computing the limitation under section 11-A and not for the computation of the limitation of one year within which, declaration under section 6 is required to be published. 7. No other error or infirmity is shown in the impugned award. In the result, the petition fails and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. Interim order stands vacated. *********