Judgment :- The Order of the Court was as follows : The writ petitions arise under the Land Acquisition Act to call for the records pertaining to issue of S. 4(1) Notification under the Land Acquisition Act made in G. O. Ms. No. 433 Housing and Urban Development dated 14-5-1990 published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 11-6-1991 in respect of the petitioners' lands at Sholinganallur village, Saidapet Taluk, Changalpattu District and quash the acquisition proceedings in pursuance of the said S. 4(1) Notification and Declaration under S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. The petitioners' case is that their lands were proposed to be acquired for the purpose of Tamil Nadu Housing Board Neighbourhood Development Scheme by issue of S. 4(1) Notification under the Land Acquisition Act in G. O. Ms. No. 433 Housing and Urban Development dated 14-5-1990. The same was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 23-5-1990. The paper publication was made in two Daily Newspapers on 4-6-1990. Publication in locality was made on 19-6-1990. Learned counsel has argued that the second respondent has not caused any publication in the locality as contemplated under R. 1 of the Rules framed under S. 55(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Learned counsel has further argued that R. 1 is mandatory and non-compliance of the same vitiates the land acquisition proceedings. The enquiry under S. 5A was conducted on 26-2-1991. Declaration under S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was made in G. O. Ms. No. 948 dated 7-6-1991. Learned counsel has further argued that the respondents have not conducted any enquiry as envisaged under R. 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that on that ground also, the entire proceedings are vitiated. Learned counsel for the petitioners has brought to the notice of this Court the Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu) Rules framed under S. 55(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894 as amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act XXXVII of 1923. Rule 1 of the abovesaid Rules reads thus : "1. Learned counsel for the petitioners has brought to the notice of this Court the Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu) Rules framed under S. 55(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894 as amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act XXXVII of 1923. Rule 1 of the abovesaid Rules reads thus : "1. Issue and publication of notice by the Collector- Immediately after the publication of the notification under S. 4(1), the Collector shall issue a notice stating that the land is needed or is likely to be needed, as the case may be, for a public purpose and requiring all persons interested in the land to lodge before the Collector within thirty days after the issue of the notification, a statement in writing of their objections, if any, to the proposed acquisition. This notice should be published at convenient places in the locality, and copies thereof fixed up in the office of the Collector, the Tahsildar, and in the nearest police station." Relying upon the above rule, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was no issuance of any notice after the publication of the notification under S. 4(1) by the Collector stating that the land is needed or is likely to be needed for a public purpose and requiring all persons interested in the land to lodge before the Collector within thirty days after the issue of the notification, a statement in writing of their objections, if any, to the proposed acquisition. In view of the above, learned counsel has argued that the entire land acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed for compliance of the requirements under Rules 1 and 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Rules. Learned counsel has also argued that even though the petitioners have filed their objections, no enquiry was conducted and no notice was issued to the petitioners and the same is contrary to Rule 3(b) and proceedings to acquire the petitioners' lands without such an enquiry is arbitrary and unreasonable. 3. Counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents stating that notification under S. 4(1) was published in the Gazette on 23-5-1990 and it was published in Tamil Dailies viz. 'Dinakaran' on 4-6-1990 and Murasoli on 5-6-1990. The notification was also published in the Village and other public places on 19-6-1990. 3. Counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents stating that notification under S. 4(1) was published in the Gazette on 23-5-1990 and it was published in Tamil Dailies viz. 'Dinakaran' on 4-6-1990 and Murasoli on 5-6-1990. The notification was also published in the Village and other public places on 19-6-1990. The respondents have denied the contention of the petitioners that the second respondent has not caused any publication of the Notification in the locality as contemplated under Rule 1 of the Rules framed under S. 55(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. It is also stated in the counter that the remarks of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board-acquisitioning body have been forwarded to the petitioners by Registered Post Acknowledgment Due on 1-3-1991. But the same has been returned 'unserved'. It is also stated in the counter that notice under Rule 3(b) has been served by affixture on the petitioners' lands on 26-4-1991. It is stated that the petitioner in W. P. No. 12333 of 1991 alone has appeared for the enquiry and she has given her statement. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that declaration under S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was not made within one year and the requirements under Rule 1 of the Land Acquisition Rules have not been followed. Hence land acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed on that ground also. Learned counsel has relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Thiruvaleeswarar Temple v. State of Tamil Nadu (1990) 1 Mad LJ 142. The Division Bench has held that the provisions of S. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and Rule 1 of the Tamil Nadu Rules under the Act with regard to publication of the substance of the notification under S. 4(1) of the Act are mandatory in nature and non-compliance with them will vitiate the entire acquisition proceedings. 5. In these cases, learned counsel has argued that separate notice has to be issued by the Collector immediately after publication of notice under S. 4(1) of the Act and that notice has to be published in the convenient places in the locality. 6. Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act reads as follows :- "4. Publication of preliminary notification and powers of officers thereupon - (1). 6. Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act reads as follows :- "4. Publication of preliminary notification and powers of officers thereupon - (1). 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 a notification to that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette and in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the notification." 7. In my view, the rules have to be read along with the relevant Sections of the Land Acquisition Act. Under Section 4(1) of the Act, the Collector after publication of the notification in the official gazette, shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality. It has also been made clear that the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the notification. Further, Rule 1 of the Land Acquisition Rules has to be read along with S. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1923. In these cases, the Collector has published the notice in the village and other public places on 19-6-1990. The above notice can be termed as the 'notice' caused by the Collector in the public place in compliance with Rule 1 of the Land Acquisition Rules after the publication of notice under S. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. I see no force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no notice was caused by the Collector immediately after the publication of notification under S. 4(1) of the Act. In the counter, it has been stated by the respondents that the remarks of the requisitioning body have been sent by the registered post to the petitioners on 1-3-1991 as required under Rule 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Rules. Since the same was returned 'unserved', the notice was affixed on the petitioners' lands on 26-4-1991. In the counter, it has been stated by the respondents that the remarks of the requisitioning body have been sent by the registered post to the petitioners on 1-3-1991 as required under Rule 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Rules. Since the same was returned 'unserved', the notice was affixed on the petitioners' lands on 26-4-1991. It is also stated in the counter that the petitioner in W. P. No. 12333 of 1991 alone has appeared for the enquiry and she has given her statement and the petitioners in W. P. Nos. 10654 and 12195 of 1991 did not appear for the enquiry. Under the circumstances it has to be held that there was compliance of Rule 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Rules. In these cases, the notification was also published in the village and other public places on 19-6-1990 and declaration under S. 6 was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No. 280 Part II, Section 2, Extraordinary dated 11-6-1991. As declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was made within a period of one year from the last date of publication i.e. 19-6-1990, it cannot be said that declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was made beyond a period of one year. I see no ground to interfere in the writ petitions. The writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, pending writ miscellaneous petitions are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.