Judgment :- 1. Aggrieved by the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents for the purpose of setting up of Industrial Complex by SIPCOT, the petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition. 2. Originally the lands of the petitioners were sought to be acquired by the respondents for the development of Tuticorin Harbour and for establishment of Industries by issuing Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in G.O. Ms. No. 630, Industries, Labour and Co-operation Department, dated 10.5.1962 and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, Part II, Section 2, dated 16.5.1962 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued in G.O. Ms. Nos.2830 and 2831, Industries, Labour and Housing, dated 23.12.1968, which was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, Part II, Section 2, dated 8.1.1969 and the petitioners filed the Writ Petition Nos. 11561 to 11563 and 11585 of 1985 respectively questioning the validity of the acquisition proceedings and the Writ Petitions were allowed by order of this Court dated 18.2.1991 and the acquisition proceedings were quashed, however, liberty was granted for issuing a fresh Notification under Section 4 of the Act and the respondents thereafter issued Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in G.O. Ms. No. 131, Industries (MID II) Department, dated 12.8.1996 and published in the newspaper by name "Kinnas" and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 25.9.1996 and Section 5-A enquiry was held and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the newspaper by name "Madurai Mani", dated 11.12.1997 and the petitioners have challenged the acquisition proceedings as illegal in the Writ Petition. 3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents herein stating that the fresh proceedings were initiated under the Act in G.O. Ms. No. 22/MID II/Industries Department, dated 21.3.1994 to acquire the lands of the petitioners along with the other lands by issuing Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in G.O. Ms. No. 131, Industries (MID II) Department, dated 12.8.1996 and published in the Gazette on 25.9.1996 and the Notification was published in the newspaper "Kinnas" on 30.9.1996 and "Kumari Murasu" on 1.10.1996 and the Notification was also published in the locality by beat of tom-tom and affixture and Section 5-A enquiry was held on 30.1.1997 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in G.O. Ms. No. 332, Industries Department, dated 8.12.1997 and published in the Gazette on 8.12.199 7 and there is no contravention of any of the provisions of the Act. 4. Though many grounds were raised in the Writ Petition, Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, mainly contends that the local publication of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was not made in the Dailies having circulation in the locality, where the lands are situated and on this ground alone, the proceedings are liable to be quashed and relies on the decisions of this Court in N. Chelladurai v. The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Madras-9 and another, 2000 (3) CTC 215 and Ramiah Moopanar v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Secretary to Government, Adi-Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Madras-9 and another, 2000 (1) CTC 117 . 5. The learned Government Advocate is also heard on this submission. 6. As per Section 4(1) of the Act, whenever any land is needed by the Government for any public purpose, a Notification to that effect is to 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. Apart from this, the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such Notification to be given at convenient places in the locality. The petitioners have specifically raised a ground stating that the newspapers, in which the publications were made by the second respondent are newspapers which are not well known and which do not have circulation in that locality. Admittedly, Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in two Tamil Dailies, namely, "Kinnas" and "Kumari Murasu" dated 30.9.1996 and 1.10.1996 respectively. 7. In the cases pertaining to the decisions referred to above, this Court considered the Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act in the same two Tamil Dailies, namely, "Kumari Murasu" and "Kinnas" and held that both the newspapers are published from Nagercoil and there is no evidence for circulation in the local area and hence the publication of the Notification in those newspapers in the locality, is not sufficient compliance of Section 4(1) of the Act. In the present case also, the lands under acquisition are part of Meelavittan Village. In the present case also, the lands under acquisition are part of Meelavittan Village. Tuticorin Taluk and there is no evidence for circulation of the newspapers in the local area. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have merely stated about the publication in those newspapers. In such circumstances, publication of Notification in those newspapers, is not sufficient compliance of Section 4(1) of the Act. On this ground alone, the acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed. 8. The Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned acquisition proceedings are quashed. No costs. It is made clear that this will not be a bar for the respondents to proceed afresh.