Judgment : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The only point argued in this appeal is that more than one year has elapsed between the issuance of the last notification in the locality under Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section 6, and in view of the same, the acquisition proceedings should be quashed and the learned Judge of the writ court erred in law by not quashing the same. It is also stated that records were not properly perused by the learned Judge and an additional argument has been advanced that there are manipulations in the records. However, such a plea was not taken before the learned Judge of the writ court nor any such ground has been taken in the memo of appeal. In view of such a stand being taken, this Court on 012. 2008 passed the following order:- “ Heard learned Counsel For The Parties. 2. The point which is raised here is that the Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was not made within a period of one year from the last date of publication under Section 4(1) notification. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent it appears as follows: - “The Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the L.A. Act was sent to the Government in Villupurams D.R.O’s J2/19746/93 dated 22. 1996 and 10.096. It was approved in G.O.(3D) No.35, dated 17.04.1996 and published at page I was notification No.202, Part II Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 17.04.1996. The said notification was also published at page 11 of Makkal Kural dated 20.04.1996 at page 4 and the same was published in the locality and in all conspicuous places on 06.08.1996.” 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that from the aforesaid affidavit it appears that draft declaration under Section 6 dated 10.04.1996 was sent for approval and it was approved on 17.04.1996. On those facts it has been urged that if it is approved on 17.04.1996, then it is not within one year from the last date of publication of Section 4(1) notification, which is dated 17.04.1995. Learned Government Pleader wants to produce the original records on Monday. Post on Monday viz., 012. 2008 at 2.30 p.m.” 3. Today, when the matter is taken up, the learned Government Pleader produced the records. Learned Government Pleader wants to produce the original records on Monday. Post on Monday viz., 012. 2008 at 2.30 p.m.” 3. Today, when the matter is taken up, the learned Government Pleader produced the records. From the records of the case, it appears that the Commissioner for Land Administration sent the proposal for declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act on 14. 96. The matter was then placed before the Government and the Deputy Secretary of the concerned department of the Government signed it on 14. 96 itself and sent it for the approval of the Honble Minister. The Honble Minister for Backward Classes Welfare has approved the said proposal and signed it on 14. 96. Thereafter, the Government Order was issued on the same date and it was published in the Government Gazette on 196. These facts relating to the approval of the proposal and the making of the declaration under Section 6 by the Deputy Secretary on 14. 96 and by the Honble Minister on 14. 96 were not stated in the counter affidavit. But these facts clearly appear from the records. 4. This Court has allowed the learned counsel for the appellant to examine the records and the learned counsel, as assisted by two other learned lawyers, looked into the records. There is no complaint about the non-examination of the records. From the records, the facts noted above appear. On those facts, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that under the provision of Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, the declaration has to be made under the signature of the Secretary of the Government. In the instant case, the signature of the Secretary is absent. Therefore, the said declaration cannot be said to have been made. 5. From the perusal of the file, it appears that the Secretary was on leave. The declaration was made and approved by the Deputy Secretary on 14. 96 and signed by the concerned Minister on 14. 96. The Government Order which was published was also signed by the Deputy Secretary. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the declaration was not made by 14. 96, since the concerned Minister has signed the same. 96 and signed by the concerned Minister on 14. 96. The Government Order which was published was also signed by the Deputy Secretary. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the declaration was not made by 14. 96, since the concerned Minister has signed the same. Once the Honble Minister signs, after the proposal has been signed by the Deputy Secretary and put up before the concerned Minister, in our view, the requirement of making the declaration under Section 6 is complete. This publication might have been made on 14. 96, but that is not a matter of great relevance for deciding whether declaration under Section 6 was made within one year. 6. The Honble Supreme Court has made this position clear in its judgment in the case of S.N.Rangappa v. State of Karnataka and another reported in (2002) 1 M.L.J.105 (SC). Dealing with this question in paragraph-9 at page 107 of the report, the learned Judges said with reference to Section 6(1) of the Act, "It is well known that after an order or declaration is made there can be a time gap between the making of the order or a declaration and its publication in the Official Gazette." The learned Judges further elaborately said "Whereas the time limit for the making of an order is provided under Sec.6(1), the legislature advisedly did not provide for any time limit in respect of the steps required to be taken under Sub-sec.(2) of Section 6." In the instant case, after the signature of the Honble Minister on the file on 14. 96, making of the declaration under Section 6(1) is complete. Almost the same principles have been laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Eugenio Misquitta and others v. State of Goa and others, (1997) 8 SCC 47 . The learned Judges of the Honble Supreme Court quoted with approval the Division Bench judgment of the High Court from which the appeal came, in paragraph-3, to the effect "that the Section 4 notification was published in Government Gazette on 6th August, 1992. Admittedly, Section 6 declaration is dated 3rd August, 1993 and it was published in the Government Gazette on 5th August, 1993. Admittedly, Section 6 declaration is dated 3rd August, 1993 and it was published in the Government Gazette on 5th August, 1993. It is, therefore, clear that with regard to the making of the declaration under Section 6, which is 3rd August, 1993, it falls within the limitation prescribed and, therefore, it cannot be held that the publication of the declaration is outside the limitation prescribed under the Act." The learned Judges in that case dismissed the appeal. 7. In the instant case, the only point which is argued is that the provision of Section 6(1) has been violated, inasmuch as the last date of Section 4 notification is 14. 95 and the Section 6 declaration was published in the Government Gazette on 196. Therefore, the publication in the Official Gazette is beyond one year. 8. The aforesaid argument cannot be accepted in view of the disclosures which have been made in the file and which has been discussed above. In the instant case, the declaration under Section 6 was made and it is complete with the signature of the Honble Minister of the concerned department on 14. 96. Apart from that, this time gap between 14. 95 and 14. 96 is construed as falling within one year in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sriniwas Ramnath Khatod v. State of Maharashtra and others, 2002 (1) CTC 569. In that case, local publication in the village took place on 30.1.86 and declaration under Section 6 was published on 30.1.87 and the Honble Supreme Court held in paragraph-16 at page 575 of the report that "This is also within one year of last date of notification under Section 4." The learned Judges of the Supreme Court said that "publication under Section 6 was ministerial act and procedural in nature." In that case also, the Supreme Court made a distinction between the making of declaration and its publication. 9. In the facts of this case, it is clear that the declaration under Section 6 was made on 14. 96 and the last date of publication under Section 4 is 14. 95 in the locality. We, therefore, cannot uphold the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that here the declaration was made beyond the period provided under Section 6(1) of the Act. 96 and the last date of publication under Section 4 is 14. 95 in the locality. We, therefore, cannot uphold the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that here the declaration was made beyond the period provided under Section 6(1) of the Act. This is the only point urged before us in this appeal and we find that the said point is without substance and hence the writ appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. The original records which have been produced before us are handed over to the learned Government Pleader.