JUDGMENT 1. - The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the land acquisition proceedings on the ground that declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called "the Act"), has been made after the time limit fixed under the Act. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner had purchased certain land from the Municipal Board, Sojat in 1971, being a strip of land lying adjacent to his house. The respondents issued certain notices on 4.3.1991 (Annexure-1) for acquiring a part of that land alongwith other land. Petitioner filed his objection to the said notice on 8.6.1992. The grievance of the petitioner is that without considering his objections properly, the Declaration under section 6 of the Act has been made on 21.11.1994. The instant writ petition has been filed only on the ground that as Section 4 notice had been issued to the petitioner on 4.3.1991, Section 6 declaration could not have been made on 21.11.1994 after a lapse of three years and eight months. There is no other ground of challenge to the acquisition proceedings. The respondents have filed reply alongwith the copy of the notification under section 4 of the Act, stating that the notification was published in the Gazette first time on 25.5.1994 (Annexure.R. 5) and Section 6 declaration had been made on 21.11.1994, i.e., within a period of six months from the date of issuance of Section 4 notification and, therefore, acquisition proceedings cannot be challenged on this ground. 3. Mr. Choudhary has submitted that as the notice had been issued to the petitioner on 4.3.1991 the limitation, provided under section 6 i.e. one year from the date of publication of Section 4 notification, has to be calculated from 4.3.1991. 4. Section 6 declaration has to be made within one year from the date of "publication" of the notification under section 4 of the Act. In the instant case, the publication of Section 4 notification had, undoubtedly, been made on 25.5.1994. A Division Bench of this Court in Anil Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., AIR 1998 Raj. 4. Section 6 declaration has to be made within one year from the date of "publication" of the notification under section 4 of the Act. In the instant case, the publication of Section 4 notification had, undoubtedly, been made on 25.5.1994. A Division Bench of this Court in Anil Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., AIR 1998 Raj. 202 , has considered this issue at great length and it has been held therein that the acquisition proceedings start from the date of publication of notification under section 4 in the Gazette and if any notice is issued prior to that by the authority, that is simply to be ignored as it is without any sanctity oer power/jurisdiction. 5. It is settled proposition of law that notification under section 4(1) of the Act is a condition precedent to the exercise of any further power under the Act. The process of acquisition starts with the notification under section 4(1) of the Act and, thus, the notification under section 4(1) is a sine qua non. Thus, where there is no notification under section 4, the machinery provided by the Act for any further action obviously cannot proceed. (Vide Babu Barkya Thakur v. State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 1203 ; Narendrajeet Singh & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Anr., AIR 1971 SC 306 ; Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor, Delhi, AIR 1974 SC 2077 ; State of Bombay v. Chaturbhuj Nenshi, AIR 1966 Guj. 185 and Smt. Angira Devi Gupta v. Land Acquisition Collector, AIR 1986 Del. 40 . 6. In Khoob Chand v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1967 SC 1074 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that as the Act provides for compulsory acquisition and deprive a person of his property, the provisions of the statute must be construed strictly. 7. Similarly, in Narendrajeet Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under : "Any notification which is the first step towards depriving a man of his property must be strictly construed and Courts ought not to tolerate any lapse on the part of the acquiring Authority in the issue of such notification if it be of a serious nature." 8. Similarly, in Narendrajeet Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under : "Any notification which is the first step towards depriving a man of his property must be strictly construed and Courts ought not to tolerate any lapse on the part of the acquiring Authority in the issue of such notification if it be of a serious nature." 8. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahendra Lal Jaini v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 1019 , while examining the requirement of publication of notification in the official gazetted under the provisions of the Indian Forests Act, 1927, has categorically held as under : "Now, a notification under section 4 of the Act is required to be published in the gazette and unless it is so published, it is of no effect." The judgment in Mahendra Lal Jaini (supra) was relied upon by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Collector (District Magistrate), Allahabad v. Raja Ram Jaiswal, AIR 1985 SC 1622 , wherein the Court held as under : "Assuming that a notification in the official gazette is a formal expression of the decision of the Government is hardly relevant unless it takes the concrete shape and form by publication in the official gazette. Where a decision of the Government to be effective and valid, has to be notified in the Government Gazette,'the decision itself does not become effective unless a notification in the official Gazette follows." 9. Thus, it was categorically held in Raja Ram Jaiswal that unless a notification under section 4(1) of the Act is published in the official gazette, nothing further can be done. This view further stands fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pankaj Jain Agency v. Union of India & Ors., (1994) 5 SCC 198 & I.T.C. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, (1996) 5 SCC 538 . 10. The effect of a publication in the local news papers of the substance of Section 4(1) notification prior to its publication in the official gazette came for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Venkataswamappa v. Special Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), AIR 1997 SC 503 , and the Court held that publication of the notification under section 4(1) of the Act in the official gazette is the actual publication. However, if it has been published in the local news papers prior to its publication in the official gazette, it would amount to an irregularity and would not vitiate the acquisition proceedings. The Apex Court observed as under : "It is true that normally publication in the news papers would be proceeded by publication in the gazette notification.... It would appear that before publication in the Gazette was made, it was published in one of the news papers. This is only an irregularity in the procedural steps required to be taken under the Act. It does not vitiate the validity of the notification published in the gazette ...." 11. In the aforesaid judgment the acquisition had been upheld on the basis of the irregularities, however, it cannot be considered as a precedent for the reason that the Supreme Court referred to its earlier judgments in Raja Ram Jaiswal (supra) but did not consider the Constitution Bench judgment in Mahendra Lal Jaini (supra). (Vide State of U.P. v. Ram Chandra Trivedi, AIR 1976 SC 2547 ; Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd., (1985) 4 SCC 369 and General Manager, Telecom v. S. Sriniwasan Rao & Ors., 1997 (9) JT 234 . 12. In view of the above, if the substance of Section 4 notification is published in the local news papers prior to the issuance of the publication in the gazette or notice has been issued to the petitioner by the Land Acquisition Officer or Collector, it is of no significance and they have simply to be ignored. Therefore, it cannot be said that Section 6 Declaration was barred by limitation provided under the Act. 13. No other point has been argued. 14. The petition is devoid of any merit and it is accordingly dismissed.Writ dismissed. *******