JUDGMENT 1. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 5th March, 1999 dismissing the appellant's writ petition. 2. Challenging the land acquisition proceedings, it was urged by the appellant - Writ petitioner before the learned single Judge that notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' was issued on 4-3-91 and the declaration of Section 6 notification made on 21-11-94 after a lapse of three years and eight months, was illegal vitiating the entire acquisition proceedings. 3. The respondents admitted that the notice was issued to the writ petitioner on 4-3-91 and it was published in the newspaper on 31-8-93 and 9-9-93 but it was last published in the Gazette Notification on 25th May, 1994 and, as such, the period of one year as required by Section 6 (2) of the Act is to be computed from the last Gazette Notification dated 25th May, 1994. The learned single Judge relying on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Anil Kumar v. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 1998 Raj 202 and decision of the Apex Court in Pankaj Jain Agency v. Union of India reported in (1994) 5 SCC 198 and I.T.C. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, reported in (1996) 5 SCC 538 , held that the substance of Section 4 notification published in the local newspaper prior to the issuance of the publication in the Gazette or notice is of no significance and they are to be ignored for computing the period of one year under Section 6 (2) of the Act. 4. It is contended by Mr. Parihar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, that a notification in the official gazette is only a formal expression of the decision of the Government and, as such, the limitation of one year under Section 6 (2) of the Act is to be computed from the first notice issued under Section 4(1) of the Act inviting objections. He has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Collector (District Magistrate), Allahabad v. Raja Rarr Jaiswal, AIR 1985 SC 1622 . He has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Collector (District Magistrate), Allahabad v. Raja Rarr Jaiswal, AIR 1985 SC 1622 . It is further submitted that Section 4 contemplates different mods of publication and if the last date of publication is to be treated as the date of publication of declaration, that would mean to keep one of the modes of publication in abeyance indefinitely and thereby to delay the award, which will defeat the purpose of making the award within the limitation as provided in Section 11-A of the Act. He has placed reliance on a decision of the this Court in Damodar Lal Sharma v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1994 (1) W LC (Raj) 294 . He has particularly invited our attention to para 30 of the judgment. 5. We are unable to agree with the submission of Mr. Parihar. It would be convenient to read sub section (1) of Section 4 of the Act, which is as follows : "4(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, a notification to that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette, and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in tho said locality." 6. The provision provides different modes of publication of notification i.e. by publication in the Official Gazette; secondly in two daily newspapers circulated in the locality and thirdly public notice of the substance of such notification at the convenient place in the locality. The provision does not provide for simultaneous publication of the notice. The clause clearly provides that the last of the date of such publication shall be the date of publication of the notification. 7. It is held by the Apex Court in Collector (District Magistrate), Allahabad v. Raja Ram Jaiswal ( AIR 1985 SC 1622 ) , that unless the decision of the State Govt. is notified in the Government Gazette by appropriate notification, the proceedings for acquisition cannot be said to have been initiated and the decision would remain a paper decision. In fact, the said authority cited by Mr. Parihar is complete answer to the contention raised by him. is notified in the Government Gazette by appropriate notification, the proceedings for acquisition cannot be said to have been initiated and the decision would remain a paper decision. In fact, the said authority cited by Mr. Parihar is complete answer to the contention raised by him. It is held thus "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 Gov ernment 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." 8. In Anil Kumar's case (supra), the notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in the local newspapers on 21-2-90, 30-3-90 and 1-4-90. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 4- 6-92. The Substance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in the local newspaper on 17-5-93 and 19-5-93. The Division Bench held that the acquisition proceedings start from the date of publication of the notification 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 or power/jurisdiction. In view of the clear pronouncement of the Division Bench on the point in Anil Kumar's case (supra), the decision of the learned single Judge in Damodar Lal Sharma's case (1994 (1) WLC (Raj) 294) (supra) and another decision of the learned single Judge in Jagrup Singh v. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR, 1993 Raj 157 , do no hold good law. 9. In the instant case, the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was published on 25-5-94 and Section 6 declaration was made on 21-11-94 i.e. within a period of six months and, as such, there is no illegality in the acquisition proceedings. 10. In view of the aforesaid, we find no merit in this Special Appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******