Judgment :- The petitioners, who are brothers, owners of land comprised in Survey Nos.159/3 and 159/4, Koyambedu Village, measuring O.48 acres, who have joined together and filed the present Writ Petition praying for the issue of writ of certiorari to call for G.O.R. No.221, Housing Department, dated 28. 1975 and published in Government Gazette, dated 10. 1975 and quash the same. 2. According to the petitioners, the lands were purchased by their father Late Deivasigamnai Naicker under deed of purchase dated 5. 1951 and 11. 1955, which was partitioned among the petitioners under a deed of partition dated 27. 1980. 3. A Notification under Sec.4(l) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was made in G.O.R. No.221, Housing Department, dated 28. 1975 for acquisition of an extent of 217.30 acres of land in Koyambedu Village for the creation of new neighbourhood, known as Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar Part II Scheme. The said G.O. was published in Government Gazette dated 10. 1975. Thereafter, a Declaration under Sec.6 was also issued in G.O.Ms. No.1381 to 1385, Housing and Urban Development, dated 29. 1978 and published in the Government Gazette Extraordinary dated 29. 1978 in respect of 162.06 acres out of 217.30 acres. 4. The petitioners herein have filed W.P. No. 1739 of 1983 to quash the declaration issued under Sec.6 of the Act in terms of W.P. No. 10351 of 1982. 5. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent had issued a notice calling upon the petitioners to appear for an enquiry on 11. 1989 under Sec.5-A. On 11. 1989 the petitioners appeared before the 2nd respondent along with their counsel. The petitioners submitted their objections on 212. 1989, as prescribed under Rule 3(b) of the Rules. The petitioners also state that no detailed enquiry was conducted and there has been violation of Rule 3(b), as the remarks of the requisitioning authority had not been communicated. The petitioners further state that the further proceeding under Land Acquisition Act were not proceeded by the 2nd respondent and no Declaration under Sec.6 of the Act had been issued uptill the date of filing of writ petition. 6. The petitioners contend that there cannot be a declaration under Sec.6 on the facts of the present case as Sec.4( 1) Notification was published on 10. 1975 and the respondents have not issued a Declaration under Sec.6, even after a lapse of three years from 21. 6. The petitioners contend that there cannot be a declaration under Sec.6 on the facts of the present case as Sec.4( 1) Notification was published on 10. 1975 and the respondents have not issued a Declaration under Sec.6, even after a lapse of three years from 21. 1988as contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act 1894. It is also contended that the 2nd respondent ought to have completed the proceedings under Sec.5-A and a declaration showed have been issued on or before 20.1.1991, and this failure is fatal to the proceedings and consequently, Sec.4(l) Notification has to be quashed. The petitioners relied upon the pronouncements of this Court reported in P.Devendran v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1993)1 M.L.J. 133 .A.S.Naidu v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1992L.A.C.C. 414 and 1992 L.A.C.C. 373. As Sec.6 Declaration had not been issued, the petitioners has filed the present writ petition to quash the Notification issued under Sec.4(l) of the Land Acquisition Act. 7. The writ petition has been admitted on 22. 1993 and interim stay of taking possession has been ordered on 22. 1993. 8. On behalf of the respondents, W.M.P. No.23574 of 1995 have been taken out to vacate the order of interim stay granted in W.M.P. No.5650 of 1993 on 22. 1993. 9. The respondents, while admitting the delay as to issue of Sec.4(l)Notification, publication of Sec.4(l) Notification and the earlier orders passed by this Court in W.P. No.1739 of 1983 have stated that a fresh 5-A enquiry notice was served and Sec.5-A enquiry was conducted on 11. 1989. The respondents, further state that on receipt of remarks an petitioners objections, the enquiry under Rule 3(b) of the Rules has also been conducted- After conducting an enquiry, the 2nd Respondent, Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), while overruling the objections in and by his proceedings dated 13. 1990 submitted proposals for issue of Declaration under Sec.6 to the 1st respondent. In the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 13. 1990, the details of enquiry conducted under Sec. 5-A of the Act, consequent to the earlier orders of this Court in W.R No.1739 of 1993 had been set out in detail. 10. No declaration under Sec.6 has been published till the date of filing of writ petition and also till 19. 1995 on which, the counter has been filed. Till 110. 10. No declaration under Sec.6 has been published till the date of filing of writ petition and also till 19. 1995 on which, the counter has been filed. Till 110. 1995 and for that matter, till the hearing of the writ petition, it is admitted that no Declaration under Sec.6 had been published in respect of the lands in question. 11. The respondents contend that a batch of Writ Petitions Nos.10474 of 1982, etc., were allowed by the Division Bench of this Court on 24. 1991 quashing the Sec.4(l) Notification in respect of Koyambedu, etc., villages and the Government has already preferred Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court on 3. 1992 and the Special Leave Petition Nos.1855, 1870 of 1992 are still pending before the Supreme Court. It is not the case of the respondents that as against the order passed by the Division Bench in W.P. No.1739 of 1983, any Special Leave Petition been preferred or is pending. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioners contend that there cannot be any fresh Declaration under Sec.6 in the present case in terms of Sec.6(l) of Land Acquisition Act and hence the Sec.4(l) Notification issued in respect of the petitioners’ land has to be quashed. Sec.4(l) Notification in the present case was issued on 28. 1975 and the same was published in the Government Gazette dated 10. 1975. Sec.6 Declaration issued on 29. 1975 and published in the Government Gazette on 29. 1975 has been quashed by this Court in W.P. No.1739 of 1983 on 21. 1980. The Order of this Court in W.P. No.1739 of 1983 was communicated to the 2nd respondent on 2. 1989. A fresh enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Land Acquisition Act was conducted on 11. 1989 in terms of notice dated 110. 1989. The 2nd respondent after communicating the remarks of the acquisition body and after holding Sec.5-A enquiry, by proceedings dated 13. 1990 overruled the objections and forwarded the papers to the 1st respondent for issue of Sec.6(l) declaration. Admittedly, on or after 13. 1990, there has been no further proceedings at all by the respondent and no declaration under Sec.6 of the Act had been issued by the respondents uptill now. 13. In this case, admittedly, Sec.6(l) declaration had also been quashed by this Court on 21. 1988. Admittedly, on or after 13. 1990, there has been no further proceedings at all by the respondent and no declaration under Sec.6 of the Act had been issued by the respondents uptill now. 13. In this case, admittedly, Sec.6(l) declaration had also been quashed by this Court on 21. 1988. It is also admitted that till date no declaration under Sec.6 of the Act had been issued by the 1st respondent, even though Sec.5-A enquiry had been concluded and proposal has been submitted as early as 13. 1990 to the 2nd respondent. The question that has to be decided is as to whether there can be a continuation of land acquisition proceedings based upon the Sec.4(l) Notification dated 28. 1975 published in Government Gazette dated 10. 1975. 14. The learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in A.S. Naidu v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1992 L.A.C.C. 414 as well as Judgment of Baktavatchalam, J reported in P.Devendran v. State of Tamil Nadu and another, 1994 WritLR. 133. 15. The learned counsel for the petitioners have also relied upon the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Thiruvaleeswarar Temple v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1990)1 M.L.J. 142 . 16. However, the point that arises on the facts of the case had been decided by the Full Bench Judgment of Supreme Court reported in N.Narashimhaiah v. State of Karnataka, (1996)3 S.C.C. 88 . The Full Bench of the Supreme Court, after referring to Oxford English School v. Govprnmnet of Tamil Nadu, (1995)5 S.C.C. 206 ; Chinnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1994)5 S.C.C 486 and K.Chinnathambi Gounderv. Government of Tamil Nadu, A.I.R. 1980 Mad. 251, has held thus: "16. We are of the opinion that running of the limitation should be counted from the date of the order of the Court received by the Land Acquisition Officer and declaration is published within one year from that date. It would be consistent with the scheme of the Act and it would subserve the public purpose. Parliament amended the Act and prescribed limitation since the acquisition proceedings were unduly delayed for years and the owners of the lands were put to hardship. If operation of limitation under Clause (ii) of first proviso to Sec.6( 1) is not applied, we would come back to squire one and defeat the legislative purpose of limitation prescribed under the Act. Parliament amended the Act and prescribed limitation since the acquisition proceedings were unduly delayed for years and the owners of the lands were put to hardship. If operation of limitation under Clause (ii) of first proviso to Sec.6( 1) is not applied, we would come back to squire one and defeat the legislative purpose of limitation prescribed under the Act. The Government is bound under the order of the Court to hold an enquiry under Sec.5-A. Thereafter, if the Government still opines that the land is needed for public purpose, declaration under Sec.6 should be published within one year as indicated above. This interpretation would render judicial review efficacious and meaningful and public purpose subserved and the aggrieved owner would get an opportunity to vindicate his grievance. Thus, we hold that the limitation prescribed in Clause (ii) of the first proviso to Sub-sec.(l) of Sec.6 would apply to publication of declaration under Sec.6(l) afresh. If it is published within one year from the date of the receipt of the order of the court by Land Acquisition Officer, declaration published under Sec.6(l) would be valid. 17. The second contention that there would be two dates of notification under Sec.4(l) as initially published and the one deemed to be published consequent to upholding of second declaration under Sec.6(l) and that the compensation under Sec.23( 1) is required to be determined with reference to second date, is untenable. The declaration under Sec.6(l) gives only conclusiveness to the public purpose specified in Sec.4(l) and the notification under Sec.4(l) still remains valid which is relevant for the purpose of computation of market value as envisaged under Sec.23(l) of me Act. When the court upholds the declaration it would relate back to the date of publication under Sec.4(l). Therefore, there are no two dates for the purpose of computation of the market value as contended for. The purpose of enquiry under Sec.5-A is to determine whether the land is needed for the public purpose and the affected owner or interested person gets a right to show that the public purpose mentioned in Sec.4(l) is not the public purpose or some other land is more suitable or is available for the public purpose or his lands need to be excluded from public purpose as the proposed land may be in excess of requirement. Once the Government, after holding the enquiry, has considered the objections and de-cided that the land is needed for public purpose, declaration published under Sec.6 would become conclusive of the public purpose. Nonetheless, relevant date for Sec.23(l) is the date of the publication of the notification under Sec.4(l). 18. Admittedly, in this case the second declaration was published within one year even from the date of the order passed by the High Court and, therefore, the view of the Division Bench is required to be upheld. Thus, we hold that the declaration published under Sec.6(l) on 15. 1989 is valued and the notification dated 21. 1989 under Sec.4(l) does not become invalid. The Land Acquisition Officer should conduct and complete award enquiry within one year from the date of the receipt of the order of this Court." 17. The Full Bench pronouncement of the Supreme Court squarely applies to the facts of the present case. The Division Bench had allowed the writ petition and quashed the Sec.6 Declaration by order dated 21. 1988 and the same has been communicated to the Land Acquisition Officer and the certified copy of the said judgment was received by the Land Acquisition Officer, the second respondent on 2. 1989. Thus either reckoned from 21. 1988 or for that matter from 2. 1989, till now no declaration under Sec.6 of the Act has been issued by the 1st respondent. Hence the Respondents cannot issue a fresh declaration under Sec.6 as number of years have rolled by now. Even assuming that a period of three years would not apply which contention is not correct, even then more than three years have elapsed since 3.-2.1983. Reckoned from 2. 1989 and till date of filing of writ petition on 12. 1993 more than three years have elapsed. In the circumstances, on the facts of the case, no declaration under Sec.6 could be issued as held by me Apex Court in N.Narasimhaiah v. State of Karnataka, (1996)3 S.C.C. 88 . 18. As no declaration could be issued, no purpose will be served in allowing the Sec.4(l) Notification alone to be kept pending. In the circumstances, it would be no more available to the State Government to make a Declaration under Sec.6 of the Act based upon the Sec.4(l) notification dated 28. 1978 and published in Government Gazette, dated 10. 1975. 18. As no declaration could be issued, no purpose will be served in allowing the Sec.4(l) Notification alone to be kept pending. In the circumstances, it would be no more available to the State Government to make a Declaration under Sec.6 of the Act based upon the Sec.4(l) notification dated 28. 1978 and published in Government Gazette, dated 10. 1975. Hence, Sec.4(l) Notification is quashed and the writ I petition is allowed, as prayed for with a cost of Rs.2,000 (Rupees two thousand only). 19. It is made clear that it is well open to the respondent in case it is satisfied the acquisition is necessary in public interest, it is free to exercise its power of eminent domain and make a fresh Sec.4(l) notification and proceed further and complete acquisition in terms of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.