JUDGMENT S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. The petitioners have challenged the land acquisition proceeding and the Notification dated 1st April, 1987 (Annexure- 3) issued under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the Act). 2. The brief fact of the case shows that a proposal was accepted by the State Government from its Animal Husbandry Department to set up one Rural Dairy and Milk Chilling Plant in the vicinity of Biharsharif. Requisition for acquisition of land to set up such plant was made by the Deputy Secretary of the Animal Husbandry Department, Government of Bihar to the Collector, Nalanda by letter dated 4th October, 1985. Request was made to acquire ten acres of land at village Devi Sarai, a Subdivision of Biharsharif in the district of Nalanda. Such requisition specifically mentions the lands, in question, of the petitioners. 3. The Collector, Nalanda thereafter held local enquiry through the Additional Collector and by his letter dated 25th March, 1986 suggested for alternative site and to drop the proposal for acquisition with respect to the present lands, in question. However, the Respondents-State issued Notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act on 1st April, 1987 and then served such notice under Section 4 of the Act on Petitioner No. 1 on 28th May, 1987. Notice was also published in one regional language newspaper 'AAJ' on 31st March, 1987 under Section 6 of the Act. In the Notification, it was specifically mentioned that the land acquisition proceeding will be completed without following the procedure of Section 5A of the Act in view of decision taken under subsection (4) of Section 17 of the Act. 4. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Respondents have not followed the mandatory provisions of Section 4 of the Act, wherein it has been specifically stipulated to publish the notification in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality of which at least one shall be in regional language, apart from the official Gazette notification. It is stated that except one notice published in the newspaper 'AAJ' on 31st March, 1987, no simultaneous notice in the second newspaper, as stipulated under Section 4 of the Act, has been published by the Respondents. 5. In the counter affidavit, the Respondents have not denied the specific averments of the petitioners, as made in the writ petition to the aforesaid effect. 5. In the counter affidavit, the Respondents have not denied the specific averments of the petitioners, as made in the writ petition to the aforesaid effect. In the supplementary counter affidavit, a vague statement has been made that Notification was issued in terms with Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, without giving any specific reference of date of such notification, published in any other second newspaper, apart from the publication made on 31st March, 1987 in the regional language newspaper 'AAJ'. 6. The provisions relating to publication of notification fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in the Collector (District Magistrate), Allahabad and another vs. Raja Ram Jaiswal, reported in A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 1622. In the said case, though notice was served under Section 4 on the land-holder, the Supreme Court held that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act initiating proceeding for acquisition of land is mandatory and failure to comply even a part of the condition laid down under Section 4(1) is fatal. It is further held that the provisions of Section 4(1) cannot be held to be mandatory in one situation and directory in another. 7. According to this Court, the case of the petitioner is covered by the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court. Though the petitioner was given notice and the provision of Section 5A was dispensed with in terms with sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Act, as sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act is mandatory and cannot be interpreted in a different manner in a case like petitioners, the Respondents cannot defeat the case of the petitioners on such ground. 8. The impugned notification having not been issued in terms with mandatory provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act, the consecutive second notification, in fact, in another local daily newspaper having not been issued, I have no other option, but to set aside the same. 9. Accordingly, the impugned notification dated 1st April, 1987 (Annexure-3), issued under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act and the L.A. proceeding so far as the lands of the petitioners, in question, are concerned are set aside. However, it will be open to the Respondents to proceed in the matter after following the provisions of law. 10. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. However, it will be open to the Respondents to proceed in the matter after following the provisions of law. 10. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order, as to costs.