ORDER 1. DELAY CONDONED. 2. WE HAVE HEARD COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES AND WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THIS IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE CASE FOR INTERFERENCE BY THIS COURT UNDER ARTICLE 136.OF THE CONSTITUTION. 3. IT IS NOT DISPUTED BEFORE US THAT THE PLOT OF LAND BELONGING TO THE RESPONDENTS WAS NOTIFIED FOR ACQUISITION UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 (FOR SHORT "THE ACT") BY NOTIFICATION DATED L4-9-L967. A DECLARATION WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 6 OF THE ACT AND THE SAID DECLARATION WAS PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 14-3-1968. IT APPEARS FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE DECLARATION PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE THAT THE PLOT OF THE RESPONDENTS, NAMELY, KHASRA NO. 381/200 (MIN) WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE AFORESAID NOTIFIED DECLARATION. THE SUBMISSION URGED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IS THAT THE SAID PLOT HAD BEEN LEFT OUT IN THE DECLARATION PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE BY INADVERTENCE. THE HIGH COURT HAS TAKEN THE VIEW, FOLLOWING ITS EARLIER FULL BENCH JUDGMENT, THAT IF THE LAND DOES NOT FIND MENTION IN THE NOTIFICATION NOTIFYING THE DECLARATION UNDER SECTION 6 OF THE ACT, THERE IS IN LAW NO ACQUISITION OF SUCH A PLOT OF LAND AND, THEREFORE, AN AWARD IN RESPECT THEREOF CANNOT BE MADE. 4. IT WAS ARGUED BEFORE US, RELYING UPON THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT IN S.H. RANGAPPA V. STATE OF KARNATAKAL AND SRINIWAS RAMNATH KHATOD V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA2 THAT THE ISSUANCE OF A NOTIFICATION, NOTIFYING THE DECLARATION UNDER SECTION 6(2) OF THE ACT, IS A MERE MINISTERIAL ACT AND DOES NOT AFFECT THE ACQUISITION WHICH IS COMPLETED BY MAKING OF A DECLARATION UNDER SECTION 6(1) OF THE ACT, EVEN WITHOUT NOTIFYING THE SAME UNDER SECTION 6(2) OF THE ACT. 5. WE HAVE PERUSED THE AFORESAID JUDGMENTS AND WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THOSE JUDGMENTS WERE MADE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION PRESCRIBED FOR MAKING A DECLARATION UNDER SECTION 6(1) OF THE ACT. THE QUESTION WHICH AROSE IN THOSE CASES WAS WHETHER THE DECLARATION WAS MADE WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE PUBLICATION OF THE NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE ACT, AND IN THAT CONTEXT IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE LIMITATION PRESCRIBED WAS FOR MAKING A DECLARATION UNDER SECTION 6(1), AND NOT FOR NOTIFYING THE DECLARATION UNDER SECTION 6(2) OF THE ACT. THE ABOVE DECISIONS ARE, THEREFORE, CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE. THE ABOVE DECISIONS ARE, THEREFORE, CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE. WE ARE SATISFIED THAT IF A DECLARATION PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE UNDER SECTION 6(2) OF THE ACT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE LAND IN QUESTION, IT CANNOT BE URGED LATER THAT THE SAID LAND WAS, IN FACT, ACQUIRED SINCE THE SAID PLOT OF LAND WAS NOTIFIED FOR ACQUISITION IN THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED UNDER SECTION 4, THOUGH NOT INCLUDED IN THE DECLARATION NOTIFIED UNDER SECTION 6(2) OF THE ACT. THE NOTIFICATION WHICH HAS TO BE ISSUED BY THE STATE UNDER SECTION 6(2) INCORPORATING THE DECLARATION MADE UNDER SECTION 6(1), IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC AT LARGE SO THAT THE PERSONS CONCERNED MAY EXERCISE THEIR RIGHTS UNDER THE ACT, OF CLAIMING HIGHER COMPENSATION AND/OR OF SEEKING A REFERENCE TO A COURT IN CASE THEY ARE NOT SATISFIED WITH THE AWARD DECLARED BY THE COLLECTOR. 6. WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO MERIT IN THESE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONS AND THE SAME ARE, ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. 7. NO ORDERS ON IMPLEADMENT APPLICATIONS. COURT MASTERS