Judgment :- This writ petition is filed challenging the land acquisition proceedings in so far as it relates to the land belonging to the petitioners in Survey No.444 to the extent of 0.60 cents (48. 0 hectares) of Velankurichi Village, Coimbatore Taluk. 2. According to the petitioners, the said property has been purchased for family purpose, being the agricultural lands under sale deed dated 14.03.1988 and the petitioners are small farmers. The Government has issued Section 4(1) notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which was published in the Government gazette on 20.04.1994, proposing to acquire the above said lands for providing house sites to public by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The said notification was published in the newspapers on 23.04.1994 and according to the petitioners, the substance of the said notification was not published. A notice under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 211. 1994 to the petitioners, besides various other owners comprised in the above survey number and other adjacent properties. Section 5-A enquiry was directed to take place on 112. 1994 and the petitioners have submitted detailed objections. Notwithstanding the said objections, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an order on 20.01.1995, rejecting the objections of the petitioners. The proceedings by the Land Acquisition Officer were questioned on the ground that the Land Acquisition Officer has not followed the procedure contemplated under Rule 4(b) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules framed as per the said Act. Thereafter, Section 6 declaration was issued in G.O.Ms.No.540 Housing dated 06.06.1995 and the petitioners were not aware of the same till they were served with notice under Sections 9 (3) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 28.02.1997. 3. The land acquisition proceedings are challenged on various grounds, viz., (i) Between Section 4(1) notification and Section 6 declaration, there is more than one year and therefore, the same is illegal; (ii) The enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was not conducted by the Land Acquisition Officer properly in accordance with the Act and the Rules. The land acquisition proceedings are challenged on various grounds, viz., (i) Between Section 4(1) notification and Section 6 declaration, there is more than one year and therefore, the same is illegal; (ii) The enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was not conducted by the Land Acquisition Officer properly in accordance with the Act and the Rules. When the petitioners have submitted their objections and the Land Acquisition Officer has forwarded the same and obtained remarks from the requisitioning body and after obtaining such remarks only, enquiry should be conducted and as per Rule 4(b) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules and in the absence of following such procedure, acquisition of land is liable to be set aside; (iii) The lands in question are required for the livelihood of the family of the petitioners. 4. It is seen in Section 4(1) notification as well as in Section 6 declaration that the land acquisition proceedings were initiated by the Government for the purpose of providing house sites to the public by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board relating to various properties comprised in Survey Nos.442, 444 and 445. The subject matter of the properties in this writ petition is forming part of Survey No.444, which are owned by nearly 23 owners and Section 6 declaration issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in G.O.Ms.No.540 Housing and Urban Development Department dated 06.06.1995, relates to all the above said three survey numbers including the property of the petitioners comprised in Survey No.444 of Velankurichi Village, Coimbatore Taluk. The said declaration was challenged by one of the owners by filing W.P.No.7267 of 1997 on similar grounds, which are raised in this writ petition. The said declaration was challenged by one of the owners by filing W.P.No.7267 of 1997 on similar grounds, which are raised in this writ petition. While disposing of the said writ petition which was filed by a Public Trust, by order dated 20.04.2004, this Court has called upon the respondents to produce the file and after verification of the entire files, has rejected the first contention that there is a lapse of more than one year between the date of Section 4(1) notification and 6 declaration on the ground that Section 4(1) notification was published on 23.04.1994 and the substance of the said notification was effected in the locality on 10.06.1994, Section 6 declaration was published on 06.06.1995 and therefore, between the local publication which was on 10.06.1994 and the date of publication of 6 declaration which was on 06.06.1995, the same is within the time prescribed under law. 5. However, in respect of the second contention of not following Rule 4(b) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules, on referring to the file, this Court has found that the objections were filed by the land owners and on referring the objections, oral statements were recorded on 112. 1994. The requisitioning body, viz., the Tamil Nadu Housing Board has replied to the objections of the land owners on 06.01.1995 stating that the Scheme must be implemented soon and on 20.01.1995, the Special Tahsildar, who was authorised by the Collector has considered the objections of the land owners and the statements of the requisitioning body and recommended publication of Section 6 declaration under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. On the said factual finding, a reference was made by this Court to Rule 4(a) and 4(b) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules, which reads thus: "Rule 4(a): If a statement of objections is filed by person who is not interested in the land, it shall be summarily rejected. Rule 4(b): If any objections are received from a person interested in the land and within the time prescribed in sub-section (1) of the Section 5-A the Collector shall fix date for hearing the objections and give notice thereof in Form "B" to the objector as well as to the Department or Company requiring the land. Copies of the objections shall also be forwarded to such Department or Company. Copies of the objections shall also be forwarded to such Department or Company. The Department or Company may file on or before the date fixed by the Collector a statement by way of answer to the objections and may also depute a representative to attend the enquiry." 6. As per Rule 4(b), when objections are received from the interested persons within the time prescribed, the Collector or persons authorised by him shall give notice to the objector Department or Company requiring the land by sending the copies of objection to the requisitioning authority, directing the Department or Company requiring the land to file statement by way of answer and may also depute a representative to attend the enquiry. It is on the said date of enquiry, the authority is expected to hear the objector as well as the requisitioning body and record the evidence produced by both in support of the objection and in support of need for acquiring the land. In the said case, this Court has clearly found on records that on the date of enquiry, viz., on 112. 1994, the procedure under Rule 4(b) was not followed and no opportunity was given to both the objector to object to the land acquisition proposal and the requisitioning body or the Department supporting the acquisition and no evidence was recorded. It was on that basis alone Section 6 declaration was quashed. The operative portion of the order passed by this Court is as follows: "5. In this case, the only date on which enquiry was held was 112. 1994. There was no enquiry as contemplated under rule 4(b) in which, an opportunity is given both to the objector and to the land owner to support their case. On this ground, the impugned order is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. No costs." Therefore, it is clear that the same notification which is impugned in this writ petition was considered by this Court earlier and set aside the Section 6 declaration. 7. Even though no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent, learned Additional Government Pleader, on verification has informed this Court that the said order of this Court in W.P.No.7267 of 1997 dated 20.04.2004 has become final and no appeal has been filed from the said order. 8. 7. Even though no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent, learned Additional Government Pleader, on verification has informed this Court that the said order of this Court in W.P.No.7267 of 1997 dated 20.04.2004 has become final and no appeal has been filed from the said order. 8. In view of the above said factual position that the Government Order which is impugned in this writ petition has already been quashed by this Court in the other writ petition stated above, and following the same, this writ petition stands allowed and the impugned order is quashed. No costs.