Judgment :- Heard Mr. R. Subramanian, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. P.S. Raman, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents. 2. In the land acquisition proceedings initiated as per the Central Act, 1894, the following three points are raised: (1) The 4 (1) notification issued is not valid on the basis of the Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1996 (Act XVI of 1997) in which it is stated that if the extent of land to be acquired is more than 10 acres, the Collector has no power to publish notification, but it is only the Commissioner of Land Administration. In the present case, the notification has been issued by the Collector and therefore, the same is not valid in law; (2) The 4 (1) notification has been issued in Dharmapuri District Gazette and the Official Gazette means in respect of the Central Act, the Gazette issued by the Government for which the reliance is placed on the Judgment rendered in A.S. periasamy V. State of Tamil Nadu and Others (2004-1-L.W.-38), wherein this Court has held that "Official Gazette" in respect of Central Act means the "Official Gazette of State" and not the "District Gazette". In the present case, the impugned 4 (1) notification has been issued by the District Gazette; and Thirdly, in Form-B issued as per Rule 4(b) of the Rules, 15 days time has been given. However, the notice sent on 12. 1998 came to be served on 04.03.1998 and enquiry was posted on 05.03.1998 and therefore, as per Form-B 15 days notice was not given. 3. As fairly submitted by Mr. P.S. Raman, learned Additional Advocate General that on the first question raised itself, the petitioner is bound to succeed and in view of the same, this Court is deciding only on the first issue. On fact, it is seen that the impugned notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been issued in Dharmapuri District Gazette by the Collector, the notification itself states that the total extent of lands said to be acquired is 96. 5 hectares which is equivalent to 12.26 acres of land. 4. On fact, it is seen that the impugned notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been issued in Dharmapuri District Gazette by the Collector, the notification itself states that the total extent of lands said to be acquired is 96. 5 hectares which is equivalent to 12.26 acres of land. 4. Under the Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1996 (Act XVI of 1997) in Section 4 (1) a new sub-section has been inserted as 4 (1- A) which reads as follows: "(1-A) The notification under sub-section (1) shall be published by - (a) the Collector in respect of land not exceeding ten acres in extent the value of which does not exceed rupees five lakhs; (b) the Commissioner of Land Administration in respect of land not exceeding twenty acres in extent the value of which exceeds rupees five lakhs, but does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs; and (c) the Government in other cases." 5. As per the said Amendment Act XVI of 1997, if the extent of land said to be acquired is more than 10 acres, the notification has to be issued only by the Commissioner of Land Administration. In the present case, when admittedly the extent of land is more than 10 acres, the notification issued by the Collector is against the Amendment Act XVI of 1997 and in view of the same, the writ petition is to be allowed on this sole ground. The impugned 4(1) notification, as followed by Section 6 Declaration dated 20.01.1999 are set aside. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed and it does not in any way prevent the Government from initiating fresh acquisition proceedings in accordance with law. No costs.