ORDER: In this writ petition, prayer has been made for quashing the publication of a notice published in daily newspaper Dina Malar dated 19.1.2000. 2. Aforesaid notice has been published at the instance of the respondent No.1, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Notice purports to indicate that a proposal has been made by the Housing Board by letter No.Ni.A.2(2)/73950/82, dated 31.3.1987 for acquiring the lands indicated in the notice and the general public should not purchase any land in the survey numbers referred to in the notice. 3. The petitioners 1 to 29 are the original owners of various properties covered under such notice. Petitioner No.30 which is a Society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act has entered into agreement with other petitioners to purchase the lands for the purpose of developing the same as house-sites. It has been contended in the petition that the proposal by the Board to acquire the land had emanated on 31.3.1937, but the said proposal is yet to be accepted by the State Government and in the absence of any notification under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the respondent No.1 was not authorised to publish notice in the newspaper which has thrown cloud in the title of the petitioners. It has also been contended that in the absence of any scheme, the Housing Board cannot acquire the lands and in any case, gross delay itself is a ground to refuse acquisition. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.1, wherein it is indicated that the proposal for acquisition of the land had already been sent long back and the notice has been published in the newspaper with a view to caution the members of the general public against purchasing the lands. 5. Sec.4(1) of the Act is admittedly the starting point in any land acquisition proceedings. Even after publication of declaration under Sec.4(1), no power is vested either with the State Government or with the requisitioning authority to prohibit the landowners from dealing with the property in any manner he likes and even there is no prohibition for sale. However, publication of such a declaration may deter an intending purchaser from purchasing the land as such land is likely to be acquired. However, publication of such a declaration may deter an intending purchaser from purchasing the land as such land is likely to be acquired. Neither the Act nor the Rules contain any provision envisaging publication of any notice to the effect that proposal for acquisition of land is pending for consideration by the Government. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 is also unable to lay his hands on any provision or Rule which contemplates publication of any notice prior to issuance of declaration under Sec.4(1) of the Act. It is not the case of the respondent No.1 that in every case when a proposal is send by the Housing Board to the Government for acquisition of the land, such proposal is published in the form of any notice in any newspaper. In such view of the matter, there cannot be any doubt that publication of notice at the instance of the respondent No.1 was uncalled for and not contemplated in the Act or Rules. 6. Even though publication of the notice was uncalled for, the prayer of the petitioners for quashing the same does not arise in a writ petition. If a cloud is thrown in the title of the petitioners as stated in the writ petition, it is always open to the petitioners to get a declaratory decree regarding their title. If possession of the petitioners is sought to be interfered with on the basis of publication in any newspaper, it is always open to the petitioners to seek for protection of their possession in an appropriate Court. Inspite of publication of such notice, there is no bar for the petitioners to deal with the property in any way they like. If the petitioners have suffered any damages on account of such publication, it is open to the petitioners to seek for payment of damages in the appropriate forum. However, there is no question of issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the publication of notice as such publication of the notice does not in any way affect the rights of the petitioners to deal with the property. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has cited several decisions of the Supreme Court and of various High Courts and contended that before publication of declaration under Sec.4(1) of the Act, the authorities cannot take any other action. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has cited several decisions of the Supreme Court and of various High Courts and contended that before publication of declaration under Sec.4(1) of the Act, the authorities cannot take any other action. While there is no dispute with the aforesaid proposition, the authorities cited are not at all relevant for the purpose of considering the prayer which has been made in the writ petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also contended that in view of the long delay acquisition if made would become vulnerable. Since the State Government is yet to take action as contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act, the question of giving any anticipatory declaration does not arise as such question is to be decided as and when the occasion arises. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.30493 OF 2001 is closed.