JUDGMENT Section 4 of the Act requires publication of preliminary notification whenever it appears to the appropriate government that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose or for a company. Such notification is required to be published in the official gazzette and in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality concerned of which atleast one should be in the regional language. It is only after such a notification is issued and published that steps under sub-section (2) thereof can be taken. Section 5A of the Act lays down that any person interested in any land which has been notified u/s 4, sub-section 1, as being needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose or for a company may, within 30 days from the date of the publication of the notification, object to the acquisition of the land. The Collector is required to give an opportunity to the objector of being heard and after making such further inquiry as he thinks necessary to make a report containing his recommendations on the objections to the appropriate government for its decision. It is only after the Government is satisfied after considering the report, if any, made u/s 5A, that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, or for a company, that a declaration u/s 6 can be made. This requirement u/s 5A can, however, be dispensed with under Section 17 in cases of urgency. Held : In the present case although it is stated that the notification u/s 6 was published on 23.1.1998 in the gazzette while the notification u/s 4 on 2.1.1998, both the notifications bear the same date i.e. 5.12.1997 which shows that the declaration u/s 6 has simultaneously been made and there is nothing on record to suggest that the enquiry required u/s 5A had been dispensed with by the appropriate Government. Under these circumstances, without holding an enquiry in accordance with Section 5A and without deriving requisite satisfaction in accordance with Section 6 after considering the report, if any, made u/s 5A, it was not permissible for the respondent to issue a declaration u/s 6. Under these circumstances, without holding an enquiry in accordance with Section 5A and without deriving requisite satisfaction in accordance with Section 6 after considering the report, if any, made u/s 5A, it was not permissible for the respondent to issue a declaration u/s 6. Under these circumstances, the declaration u/s 6 for the reason that it has been simultaneously issued as also for the reason that although enquiry u/s 5A has not been dispensed with, the declaration has been issued without holding such an enquiry, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the declaration Annexure P-2 (Annexure R-II to the Return) u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act is quashed. The respondents shall hold an enquiry as required by Section 5A of the Act and only thereafter to consider in accordance with law, whether or not a declaration should be issued u/s 6 in the present case. AIR 1989 SC 682 followed.