ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare notification dated 22.9.2006 issued by respondent No.2 under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act 1894 (for short "the Act") whereby the lands of the petitioners to the extent of Ac.4.00 in survey Nos.313/1, 11, 12, 13, 314/4 & 5 of Mahindravada village, Anaparthy Mandal, East Godavari district are proposed to be acquired as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Act. The petitioners also sought for direction to the respondents not to dispossess them from the said lands. 2. The petitioners are the owners of the above mentioned lands. By notification dated 22.9.2006, the said lands are proposed to be acquired for public purpose, namely, to provide house-sites to weaker sections under Indiramma scheme. Notice dated 26.9.2006 issued under Section 5A of the Act was served on the petitioners and in response thereto they filed their objections within the stipulated time. The objections were enquired into by respondent No.3 on 30.10.2006 by giving opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners. Vide proceedings dated 9.10.2007 respondent No.2 rejected the objections. Thereafter declaration dated 17.11.2007 was issued under Section 6 of the Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that since declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made beyond one year of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the entire land acquisition proceedings have got lapsed by operation of proviso (ii) to Section 6(1) of the Act. When the writ petition came up for admission on 7.12.2007, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition took time for getting instructions. On 18.12.2007 the writ petition was heard and the learned Assistant Government Pleader on instructions stated that though notice under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the newspapers on 22.9.2006, the said notice was published in the locality on 20.11.2006. Section 6 declaration having been published on 17.11.2007, contends the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the same was made within the time limit of one year. Learned counsel for the petitioners however, submitted that since enquiry under Section 5A of the Act was held on 30.10.2006 and objections raised by the petitioners were rejected by respondent No.2 on 9.10.2007, publication of notice in the locality thereafter cannot be countenanced in law. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners however, submitted that since enquiry under Section 5A of the Act was held on 30.10.2006 and objections raised by the petitioners were rejected by respondent No.2 on 9.10.2007, publication of notice in the locality thereafter cannot be countenanced in law. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Under Section 4(1) of the Act the notification of proposed acquisition for any public purpose or for a company shall 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 and public notice of substance of such notification shall be given at convenient places in the locality. The said provision further provides that the last of the dates of such publication and giving of such public notice shall be referred to as the date of publication of the notification. 7. Under Section 5A of the Act any person interested in any land which has been notified under Section 4(1) of the Act may within 30 days from the date of the publication of the notification object to the acquisition of the land and every such objection shall be enquired into by the Collector by giving the objector an opportunity of being heard. After hearing such objections the Collector shall send report to the appropriate Government for its decision and the same shall be final. The State of Andhra Pradesh inserted Section 3A of the Act under which the State Government is empowered to authorize the District Collector to exercise any power conferred or any duty imposed on it. Accordingly, the Collectors are authorized to dispose of the objections under Section 5A of the Act by the State Government. 8. After deciding on the objections under Section 5A of the Act and where appropriate Government (the District Collector) is satisfied that the land is needed for public purpose or for a company, a declaration to that effect shall be made under Section 6 of the Act. 9. The abovementioned provisions of the Act make it abundantly clear that the stage for sending objections would not set in until "publication of the notification". 9. The abovementioned provisions of the Act make it abundantly clear that the stage for sending objections would not set in until "publication of the notification". As already noted hereinabove, the expression "date of the publication of the notification" is referable to the last of the dates of the publication in daily newspapers and publication of substance of the notification in the locality (public notice). Thus a conjoint reading of Sections 4(1) and 5A of the Act makes it apparent that before the commencement of entertaining of objections and holding of enquiry under Section 5A, publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act should be completed in all respects. In the instant case even before the public notice was given (by causing the notice of the substance of the notification given in the locality), notice of enquiry under Section 5A of the Act was issued, enquiry was held and order rejecting the objections was passed. It is only thereafter that the substance of the notification under section 4(1) of the Act was published on 20.11.2006. In my considered view this procedure is fundamentally contrary to the scheme underlying the provisions of Sections 4(1) and 5A of the Act. Consequently the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act in pursuance of the purported enquiry held under Section 5A and order rejecting the petitioners' objections get invalidated. 10. Though it is claimed that publication in the locality was made on 20.11.2006, in view of the above findings that such a publication could not have been made after completion of enquiry under section 5A of the Act and rejection of objections, the said date cannot be reckoned for the purpose of determining whether declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made within one year of the publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. The entire procedure followed by the respondents is thus vitiated by procedural illegalities. Since declaration made under Section 6 is declared invalid, the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act is rendered ineffective in law in the face of the statutory mandate that no declaration under Section 6 can be made beyond one year of the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. 11. Since declaration made under Section 6 is declared invalid, the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act is rendered ineffective in law in the face of the statutory mandate that no declaration under Section 6 can be made beyond one year of the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. 11. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed and notification dated 22.9.2006 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act and declaration dated 17.11.2007 issued under Section 6 of the Act are quashed. This order however, does not prevent the respondents from initiating acquisition proceedings afresh, if they so choose. 12. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.34055 of 2007 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.