P.Sathasivam, J.: Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated 22.12.1998, made in Writ Petition No.13216 of 1992, State of Tamil Nadu through its Commissioner and Secretary, Social Welfare Department and Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravidar Welfare), Vellore preferred the above writ appeal. 2. The respondents herein are the petitioners before the learned Judge, who filed the said writ petition questioning the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the Government for providing house sites to Adi Dravidars. By the impugned order, the learned Judge, after finding that there is no specific delegation or authorization by the Government authorizing the Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravidar Welfare) to discharge the duties of the Collector, quashed the entire acquisition proceedings and allowed the writ petition. Questioning the said order, the present appeal has been filed. 3. For convenience, we shall refer the parties as arrayed in the writ petition before the learned single Judge. According to the petitioners, they are the owners of land bearing Survey No.37/2 of an extent of 4.32 acres at 1.74.5 Hectares of land situated in Mangadu village in Arcot Taluk in North Arcot District. Notification under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Gazette on 15.3.1988 and in dailies on 17.3.1988. The substance of the same was not published in the locality. Though the petitioners submitted their objection in the enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act on 9.3.1992, the same was not duly considered. Sec.6(1) declaration was published in the gazette on 20.8.1992, and in dailies on 21.8.1992. The said declaration is per se illegal and beyond the period prescribed. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it is stated that on an application made by the houseless Adi-Dravidars of Mangadu village, Arcot Taluk to relieve congestion and taking into account of the dire need and necessity of providing house sites to them and no Government land available, they initiated acquisition proceedings to acquire the land of the petitioners. After fulfilling all the formalities such as effecting proper notification in the gazette, publication in two dailies and in the locality, notice was served on the petitioners for 5-A enquiry. They participated in the enquiry and submitted their objection. After considering and over-ruling their objection, the Government issued declaration under Sec.6 and ultimately passed an award. After fulfilling all the formalities such as effecting proper notification in the gazette, publication in two dailies and in the locality, notice was served on the petitioners for 5-A enquiry. They participated in the enquiry and submitted their objection. After considering and over-ruling their objection, the Government issued declaration under Sec.6 and ultimately passed an award. There is no flaw in the procedure that was followed and inasmuch as the petitioners were given opportunity in all stages, there is no ground for interference. 5. The learned Judge in his lengthy order has found that though in the notification published in the gazette, there was an authorization, authorizing the second respondent-Special Tahsildar for the purpose of Sec.4(2) as well as Sec.3(c) of the Act, in the notification published in the newspaper, there was no specific delegation or authorization authorizing the second respondent to discharge the duties of the Collector; hence he quashed the entire acquisition proceedings on the ground of want of jurisdiction on the part of the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition). Questioning the same, the present appeal came to be filed. 6. First, let us consider whether the reason given by the learned Judge for quashing the entire acquisition proceedings is sustainable? The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents/appellants herein would submit that inasmuch as the Notification issued under Sec.4(1) and published in the gazette contains specific authorization by the Governor of Tamil Nadu, authorizing the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition-Adi Dravidar Welfare), Vellore to exercise the powers conferred under Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.4 and Clause (c) of Sec.3 of the Act, the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition (Adi Dravidar Welfare) is fully empowered to perform the functions of the Collector under Sec.4(1) of the Act. He further contended that merely because the said authorization was not fully and correctly translated and published in Tamil newspapers, it would not vitiate the acquisition proceedings. He further contended that merely because the said authorization was not fully and correctly translated and published in Tamil newspapers, it would not vitiate the acquisition proceedings. There is no dispute that as per Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.4, it is the Government to authorise an officer or his servants and workmen to enter upon and survey and take levels of any land in such locality; to dig or bore into the sub-soil; to do all other acts necessary to ascertain whether the land is adapted for such purpose; to set out the boundaries of the land proposed to be taken and the intended line of the work (if any) proposed to be made thereon; to mark such levels, boundaries and line by placing marks and cutting trenches; and, where otherwise the survey cannot be completed and the levels taken and the boundaries and line marked, to cut down and clear away any part of any standing crop, fence or jungle. Clause (c) of Sec.3 defines “Collector”, which means the Collector of a district, and includes a Deputy Commissioner and any officer specially appointed by the appropriate Government to perform the functions of a collector under this Act. A reading of the above provision, namely, Secs.4(2) and 3(c) make it clear that it is for the Government (in the present case ‘the State Government’) to empower or authorize any officer to perform the functions as provided under Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.4 such as to enter upon and survey etc., and also to perform the functions of a collector under Sec.5-A of the Act. Without specific authorization, neither the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) nor any one who performs the functions of the District Collector, can act on behalf of the District Collector, as provided under Sec.3(c) of the Act. There is no doubt about the above provisions of Law. The learned single Judge in para 21 of his order, extracted the English copy of the gazette notification published under Sec.4(1) of the Act. 7. As per Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.4, a Notification is to be published (i) in the Official gazette; (2) in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language; and (ii) substance of such notification is to be given at convenient places in the said locality. 7. As per Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.4, a Notification is to be published (i) in the Official gazette; (2) in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language; and (ii) substance of such notification is to be given at convenient places in the said locality. By pointing out the above three modes of publication and also the non-mentioning of Sec.3(c) in the paper publication, learned senior counsel for the writ petitioners submitted that in the absence of specific authorization to the Special Tahsildar to perform the functions of the District Collector, both under Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.4 and under Clause (c) of Sec.3 of the Act in the Tamil Dailies, he [Special Tahsildar (Adi-Dravidar welfare)] has no jurisdiction to hold an enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act and that the learned single Judge correctly accepted this irregularity and allowed the writ petition. We are unable to accept the said contention of the learned senior counsel as well as the conclusion of the learned single Judge for the following reasons. 8. We have already referred to the fact that Notification under Sec.4(1) is to be published in 3 modes, namely, (i) in the Gazette, (ii) in two dailies, and (iii) in the locality. Even as per the said section, it is only a preliminary Notification. The three modes of publications are intended to give an opportunity to the land owner to make effective representation and participate in the enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act. We have already held that without a specific authorization by the Government, no officer can enter upon, survey any land and perform the functions of the District Collector under Sec.5-A of the Act. Accordingly, we are of the view that there must be a specific authorization by the Government, authorizing a particular officer to perform both the functions, as prescribed under Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.4 and also under Clause (c) of Sec.3 of the Act. The notification published in the official gazette which is in English version, contains both authorization not only conferring powers upon the Special Tahsildar (Adi-dravidar Welfare), Vellore, his staff and workmen to do the acts, as provided under Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.(4), but also conduct 5-A enquiry. One such mode was published in the official gazette without any ambiguity giving clear power to the officer concerned, here the Special Tahsildar to proceed with the acquisition. One such mode was published in the official gazette without any ambiguity giving clear power to the officer concerned, here the Special Tahsildar to proceed with the acquisition. With this, he can enter upon survey any land and also conduct enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act. Merely because the exact contents of the gazette notification having not been reproduced in verbal in Tamil dailies, it cannot be construed that there is no specific authorization on the Special Tahsildar by the Government. Though the notification published in the two dailies newspapers in the regional language did contain authorization under Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.4, there is a omission in mentioning Clause (c) of Sec.3 authorizing the Special Tahsildar to perform the functions of the Collector under Sec.5-A. Even if we accept that there is a omission, we hold that this is only an irregularity and it would not vitiate the acquisition proceedings. To put it clear, before initiation of proceedings, the Government should authorize any officer to perform the functions of a Collector both under Sec.4(2) and Sec.3(c) of the Act to enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act. Since the Gazette Notification contained both the authorizations, we are of the view that the officer concerned, namely, Special Tahsildar can very well function and perform the duties of the District Collector. It is worthwhile to refer a decision of this Court in Maria Rosal De Rose v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1970)2 M.L.J. 471 , wherein it was held that Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, I of 1894, imposes two obligations before the Government could enter upon the land, survey, take level and do all such other acts necessary to ascertain whether the land is adapted for the public purpose. The first thing that has to be done is that the Government should publish a notification in the official Gazette that the land proposed to be acquired in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose. Secondly, the Collector or the Land Acquisition Officer, as the case may be, shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality. Secondly, the Collector or the Land Acquisition Officer, as the case may be, shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality. The entire purpose of this Sub-section is to give public notice of the proposal, and if, therefore, it is published in the locality and particularly persons affected by the proposal are aware that such an activity is a foot, then it is sufficient. Hence, it is not correct to say that any defect in the notification under Sec.4 is fatal to, the validity of the proceedings. We are in agreement with the said conclusion of the learned Judge. Therefore in our case we are unable to accept the contrary conclusion arrived at by the learned single Judge; hence the same is liable to be set aside. 9. The other contention of the learned senior counsel for the writ petitioners is that the notification was quashed by the learned single Judge on a single ground, whereas the petitioners have other valid grounds with reference to prove that the land acquisition proceedings are invalid. According to him, all the 3 modes of notification under Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.4 are to be published simultaneously or within a reasonable time, and in this case, the substance of Notification was published in the locality after a period of 60 days from the Gazette notification i.e., on 26.6.1988, which shows that 4(1) notification itself is not in accordance with the statute; hence the same is liable to be quashed. Here again, we are unable to appreciate the said contention. First of all, admittedly, the said objection has not been raised in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition at the earliest point of time. Secondly, admittedly, in between the modes of notification no time limit was prescribed either in the Act or in the Rules. In fact, the petitioners (land owners) on receipt of the notice, participated in the enquiry under Sec.5-A, submitted their objections and the same were considered by the Authority. In such a circumstance, we are of the view that no prejudice was caused to them. In fact, the petitioners (land owners) on receipt of the notice, participated in the enquiry under Sec.5-A, submitted their objections and the same were considered by the Authority. In such a circumstance, we are of the view that no prejudice was caused to them. The counter affidavit filed by the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition (Adi-dravidar welfare) shows that 4(1) notification was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 20.4.1988, the substance of the above 4(1) notification was also made public on 26.6.1988 in the locality of Mangadu village. This is, according to the learned senior counsel for the writ petitioners, beyond the period of 60 days. We have already referred to the fact that at the tie, when the 4(1) Notification was published on 20.4.1988, no time limit was in existence either in the Act or in the Rule for publication of the three modes. Admittedly, only in the Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1996 (Act 16 of 1997), an Explanation was inserted to the effect that the 3 modes of publication i.e., in the official gazette in two dailies newspapers and public notice in the locality are to be completed within a period of 60 days. It is also not disputed that the amendment brought in Sec.4 is only prospective. It is true that if there is a long delay or break in publication of three modes of notification, the Courts can interfere. Mr.G.Rajagopal, learned senior counsel for the writ petitioners, very much relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Government of Tamil Nadu v. S.Jayaram, 1992 Writ L.R. 332, in which it was held that the notification in the official gazette and the public notice of the substance of the notification at the convenient places of the locality should not exceed 2 months and if it exceeds two months, it is liable to be questioned. Similar view has been expressed by a subsequent Division Bench in Government of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary Home Department v. M.Natarajan, (1997)2 C.T.C. 347 . Learned senior counsel heavily relied on both the above decisions. We have already referred to the fact that there is no fixed period prescribed between the three modes of publication in the statute i.e., either in the Act or in the Rules. Learned senior counsel heavily relied on both the above decisions. We have already referred to the fact that there is no fixed period prescribed between the three modes of publication in the statute i.e., either in the Act or in the Rules. In such a circumstance, we have to see that whether there is any deep gap between the publication of the notification and public notice of substance in the convenient places of locality and it should not exceed the minimum possible time. In the absence of statutory provision, it cannot be contended that there is a deep gap between the public notice published at the convenient places of the locality on 26.6.1988, and the notification in the gazette on 20.4.1988, as claimed by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners. Therefore, in the absence of specific period in the Act or Rules, merely because the publication in the locality exceeded just 60 days which caused prejudice to the land owners would not come to the rescue of the writ petitioners. On the other hand, they participated in the 5-A enquiry, submitted their objection and the same were considered by the Government. Accordingly, we hold that no prejudice was caused to the writ petitioners. 10. It is relevant to refer another decision of the Supreme Court in Venkataswamappa v. Special Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 503. In the said case, the Newspaper publication came up before publication in the gazette. Their Lordships have held that this is only an irregularity in the procedural steps required to be taken under the Act and it does not vitiate the validity of the notification publish din the Gazette. 11. It is also useful to refer another Division Bench decision of this Court in Ammasai Gounder, K.R. v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1998)2 C.T.C. 297 . With reference to time gaps in three modes of publication and whether the same vitiates the acquisition proceedings, the following conclusion of their Lordships are relevant: (para 14) “14. Now, we take up for consideration, the contention that the acquisition proceedings are vitiated on account of gap in the publication of 4(1) Notification in the official gazette, newspapers and in the locality. The purpose of the acquisition is not disputed, viz., that the land was sought to be acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to Adi Dravidars under a welfare scheme. The purpose of the acquisition is not disputed, viz., that the land was sought to be acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to Adi Dravidars under a welfare scheme. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, no mala fides were attributed, and no prejudice was pleaded on account of the long gap between the dates of publications of 4(1) Notification. Even before us there was no argument that there were only mala fides on the part of the respondents in acquiring the land. It was also not shown as to how any prejudice was caused on account of the gap between the dates of different modes for publications under Sec.4(1) of the Act.” In this regard, it is relevant to note that we have already observed that the said objection was not raised in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. Further, the land owners/writ petitioners filed their objections, participated in the 5-A enquiry and after enquiry and after consideration of the objections, the Collector recommended for rejection their objections and accordingly, the State Government accepted the same, and took a final decisions and issued a declaration under Sec.6 of the Act. It is also relevant to note that no argument was advanced that there were any mala fides on the part of the respondents in acquiring the land. It was also not shown as to how any prejudice was caused on account of the gap between the dates of different modes of publication under Sec.4(1) of the Act. Accordingly, we reject the second contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the writ petitioners. 12. Yet another contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners is that since the last mode of 4(1) Notification (locality) was published on 26.6.1988, the declaration under Sec.6 of the Act was published in the Gazette on 20.8.1992, which is beyond the prescribed period. He also contended that even if the time taken by this Court due to the pendency of the writ petition filed by the petitioners excluded, the said declaration is beyond the prescribed statutory period. Here again, as rightly pointed out by the learned Special Government Pleader, the said objection has not been raised in the affidavit. Even otherwise, the information furnished in the counter affidavit filed before the learned single Judge disproves the claim of the petitioners. Here again, as rightly pointed out by the learned Special Government Pleader, the said objection has not been raised in the affidavit. Even otherwise, the information furnished in the counter affidavit filed before the learned single Judge disproves the claim of the petitioners. Para 7 of the counter affidavit shows that the substance of 4(1) Notification made on public in the locality of Mangadu village on 26.6.1988. The draft declaration should be published within a year i.e., 25.6.1999 as per the Rules. But, at the instance of the land owners, this Court ordered interim stay in W.M.P.No.14292 of 1988 in Writ Petition No.10159 of 1988 on 5.9.1988 and the writ petition was dismissed on 31.10.1991. The period from 5.9.1988 to 31.10.1991 covered by the period of stay i.e., 3 years, 1 month and 26 days are to be excluded for calculating the period of one year for publication of declaration under Sec.6. It is further informed that if the said period is excluded, declaration under Sec.6 of the Act is to be published on or before 21.8.1992, however, the same was published in the Government Gazette dated 20.8.1992. As such, the publication of declaration under Sec.6 made in the Gazette on 20.8.1992 is within the prescribed time. The facts and figures, furnished in para 6 of the counter affidavit filed by the Special Tahsildar, have not been repudiated/disputed by the writ petitioners by filing a reply affidavit before the learned Judge. Even before us, except the statement of the learned senior counsel, the dates referred to by him have not been substantiated by placing acceptable materials. There is no reason to reject the details furnished in para 7 of the counter affidavit. Accordingly, we accept the same and hold that there is no delay in making declaration, as claimed by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners and we reject the same. 13. In the light of what is stated above, we set aside the order of the learned single Judge dated 22.12.1998, made in Writ Petition No.13216 of 1992. Net result, the writ appeal is allowed. No costs.