Judgment : C. Shivappa, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 26. 1992, passed in W.P. No. 14563 of 1990. 2. A Division Bench of this Court, in Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary, another v. S. Jayaraman, 1992 (1) L.W. 326 , has held that the delay between the publication of Section 4(1) notification in the of ficial gazette and the public notice of the substance at convenient places of the locality should not exceed two months. If it exceeds two months, it is liable to be questioned. 3. The contention of the learned Government Pleader is that there is no statutory rule of limitation regarding the publication of notice provided under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and, therefore, discretion should have been exercised only in favour of the validity of the notification . There must be continuity of action in the publication of Section 4 (1) notification in the of ficial gazette and in the newspapers, and also in giving public notice of the substance at convenient places in the locality. If there is any long delay or break in the continuity, in any individual case, it may defeat the scheme for which the acquisition was intended and it may create an uncertainty in putting the land for the required use and may also prevent the development of such land by the land owner and many such consequences. The provisions being mandatory and the law of acquisition being one of depriving the citizens of their right to property to which some of them are sentimentally attached, strict compliance of the provisions of law is required, atleast within the minimum possible time after notification. The of ficials concerned have to act sincerely and in a most diligent manner because any unavoidable delay would render the publicity contemplated under Section 4(1) of the Act effectless. Therefore, in order to prevent the deep gap between the publication of the notification and public notice of the substance at convenient places of the locality should not exceed the minimum possible time. 4. Therefore, in order to prevent the deep gap between the publication of the notification and public notice of the substance at convenient places of the locality should not exceed the minimum possible time. 4. Though there is nothing like stipulating a time in Section 4 of the Act, but a reading of the section and the expedition with which the notice has to be published, as contemplated in the Act, would make it clear that the Act prevents any delay which can take in its ambit a deep gap between the date of publication of the notification and the date of public notice of the substance of such notification at convenient places in the locality. Therefore, in order to prevent any undue delay and evil consequences on the land owners and also to keep the effect of the notice intact, a reasonable time has to be read or presumed to a provision as has been done by this Court, with which we respectfully concur. There is no substance in the contention raised by the Government Pleader. 5. We see no ground to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. The writ appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.