Judgment :- The appellant-writ petitioners are aggrieved by a part of the order of the learned single Judge, dated 6. 1999 in Writ Petition Nos.10450 and 10451 of 1992, whereby their cases have been remitted for Enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act). 2. As the cases can be disposed of on a short question, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts, except the relevant one. 3. The State Government issued Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 23. 1991, vide G.O.Ms.No.431, Housing and Urban Development Department, which was published in the Gazette on 4. 1991; it was published in the local dailies — Dhina Thoothu and Dhina Puratchi on 24. 1991; publication of the Notification in the locality was made on 25. 1991; the Enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was conducted on 18. 1991, the Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 15. 1992, vide G.O.Ms.No.247, Housing and Urban Development Department, i.e. eight days before the expiry of one year from the date of issuance of the Notification in the locality, i.e. from 25. 1991. The Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the Gazette on 15. 1992, followed by the publication in the local dailies – Makkal Kural and Dhina Thoothu on 15. 1992 and the publication of the Declaration was made in the locality on 15. 1992. 4. The appellants (writ petitioners) preferred two separate Writ Petitions, challenging the common Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act and the Declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act, and therein, interim order of stay was granted on 30.7.1992, due to which, no Award was passed. 5. By the impugned common order, dated 6. 1999, both the Writ Petitions were partly allowed by the learned single Judge, declaring the Declaration issued Section 6 of the Act as illegal and set aside the same, thereby, remitted the matter for conducting fresh Enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-writ petitioners submitted that the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, having been published and the same having been Gazetted on 4. 1991, the Declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act ought to have been issued within one year from the date of the publication of the Notification. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-writ petitioners submitted that the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, having been published and the same having been Gazetted on 4. 1991, the Declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act ought to have been issued within one year from the date of the publication of the Notification. If the period of the interim order of stay passed in the Writ Petitions is excluded, i.e. the period from 27. 1992 to 6. 1999, then in that case also, the Declaration under Section 6 of the Act ought to have been issued by 16. 1999, i.e. the last date for expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. In this background, it is contended that the question of Enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act is uncalled for. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-State has not disputed the facts as brought to the notice of the Court, but according to him, a fresh Notification can be issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. 8. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 9. Admittedly, the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was Gazetted on 4. 1991. It was published in the dailies on 24. 1991 and in the locality on 25. 1991, thereby, within one year, the Declaration under Section 6 of the Act ought to have been made, which was made, but the same was set aside by this Court. Under the law, if the period of interim order is excluded, even then, by this time, it is not possible for the State to issue a Declaration under Section 6 of the Act, on the basis of the Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. 10. The first proviso to Section 6(1) of the Act fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of "Padma Sundara Rao vs. State of T.N." reported in 2002 (3) SCC 533 , wherein, the Supreme Court held that the purpose of providing the period of limitation under the first proviso to Section 6(1) of the Act seems to be the avoidance of inconvenience to a person whose land is sought to be acquired. The language of Section 6(1) is plain and unambiguous and there is no scope for reading something into it. The prescription of time limit under the first proviso is peremptory and if the Declaration under Section 6 of the Act is quashed by the Court, a fresh Declaration must be issued within the same limitation prescribed under the first proviso to Section 6 (1) of the Act. 11. The case of the appellants being covered by the first proviso to Section 6(1) of the Act and the decision of the Supreme Court in the said case, we hold that the respondents cannot also proceed further with the Enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act for the purpose of issuance of Declaration under Section 6 of the Act on the basis of the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, which was Gazetted on 4. 1991. 12. As 15 days notice for Enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was mandatory, with eight days prior to the completion of one year under the first proviso to Section 6(1) of the Act, it was not desirable for the learned single Judge to remit the matter for fresh Enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. 13. The prayer made in the Writ Petitions stands allowed to the extent indicated above and the impugned order dated 6. 1999 passed by the learned single Judge stands modified to the extent indicated above. However, this judgment shall not sand in the way of the authorities to issue fresh Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, if there is any public interest under the Act. 14. Both the Writ Appeals stand allowed with the aforesaid observations. No costs.