Judgment :- S.A. Bobde, J. (1) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. (2) This is an application for review of judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2017/2001 decided by Division Bench of this Court on 5-10-2002. The applicant had approached this Court against proceedings for acquisition of 9 R of land from Survey No. 249 of Mouja Shegaon. Notification under section 4 was issued on 7-2-2000 and Notification under section 6 was issued on 20-2- 2001. This Court by order dated 5-10-2002, quashed the Notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, on the ground that the applicant had not been heard under section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act. Thus, as a result of this judgment, it was contemplated by the Court that fresh hearing would be given before issuance of fresh Notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The only ground urged by Mr. Mohta, the learned counsel for the applicant, is that the judgment and order of this Court suffers from an error of law apparent on the face of the record in that it sets aside section 6 Notification and directs the hearing and issuance of fresh Notification under section 6 beyond the period of one year contemplated by Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. (3) Section6 of the Land Acquisition Act, which is relevant, reads as follows : "6. (3) Section6 of the Land Acquisition Act, which is relevant, reads as follows : "6. Declaration that land is required for a public purpose.-(1) Subject to the provisions of Part VII of this Act, when the appropriate Government is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made under section 5A, sub-section (2), that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, or for a company, a declaration shall be made to that effect under the signature of Secretary to such Government or of some officer duly authorised to certify its orders and different declarations may be made from time to time in respect of sub-section (I), irrespective of whether one report or different reports has or have been made (wherever required) under section 5A, sub-section (2); Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification under section 4, sub-section (J),(i) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967 (1 of 1967), but before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made after the expiry of three years from the date of the publication of the notification; or (ii) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made after the expiry of one year from the date of publication of the notification; Provided further that no such declaration shall be made unless the compensation to be awarded for such property is to be paid by a company, or wholly or partly out of public revenues or some fund controlled or managed by a local authority. Explanation l.In computing any of the periods referred to in the first proviso, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the notification issued under section 4, sub-section (I), is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded. Explanation 2.Where the compensation to be awarded for such property is to be paid out of the funds of a Corporation owned or controlled by the State, such compensation shall be deemed to be compensation paid out of public revenues. Explanation 2.Where the compensation to be awarded for such property is to be paid out of the funds of a Corporation owned or controlled by the State, such compensation shall be deemed to be compensation paid out of public revenues. (2) Every declaration shall be published in the Official Gazette, and in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality in which the land is situated of which at least one shall be in the regional language, and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such declaration to be given at convenient places in the said locality (the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the declaration), and such declaration shall state the district or other territorial division in which the land is situate, the purpose for which it is needed, its approximate area, and, where a plan shall have been made of the land, the place where such plan may be inspected. (3) The said declaration shall be conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public purpose or for a company, as the case may be; and, after making such declaration the appropriate Government may acquire the land in a manner hereinafter appearing. Clause (ii) of the first proviso leaves no manner of doubt that a declaration under Section 6 that any particular land is needed for public purposes cannot be published after expiry of one year from the date of publication of the Notification. In the present case, it is clear that the judgment under review contemplated publication of a declaration under section 6 after expiry of one year from the date of publication of the Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was published on 7-2-2000. (4) Mr. Patil, the learned counsel for non-applicant No. 5-Trust for whom the land was proposed to be acquired and Mr. Deshpande, the learned A.G.P. for the State, submitted that the period during which status quo order was made by this Court is liable to be excluded. According to the learned counsel, the period from 17-7-2001 till 5-10-2002 when this Court delivered judgment under review is liable to be excluded because there was a stay operating on further proceedings. Deshpande, the learned A.G.P. for the State, submitted that the period during which status quo order was made by this Court is liable to be excluded. According to the learned counsel, the period from 17-7-2001 till 5-10-2002 when this Court delivered judgment under review is liable to be excluded because there was a stay operating on further proceedings. It is, therefore, necessary to refer to the interim order of this Court to see whether in fact a stay was operating. The relevant part of interim order dated 17-7-2010 granted by this court reads as under : "For a period of six weeks, the parties are directed to maintain status quo in respect of land in question. This order shall not preclude the Acquisition Authority to proceed with finalisation of Award. " We find that the said order does not constitute a stay as contemplated by explanation 1 to the second proviso to section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The order passed by this Court clearly requires the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the land in question so that no alteration is made to the status and the possession in respect of the land. Contrary to the submissions, the interim order granted of this Court, in fact, specifically permits the land acquisition authority to proceed with the finalisation of the award. (5) There is no dispute that this award was eventually passed on 17-4-2002. Thus, there was no stay to the acquisition proceedings as required by explanation 1 to the second proviso of section 6 and, therefore, it cannot be held that explanation 1 to the second proviso is not contradicted. We find that the main contention on behalf of the applicant is no more res Integra in view of judgment of the Supreme Court in Oxford English School vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and ors., AIR 1995 SC 2398 and the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Supreme Court in Padmasundara Rao (Dead) and ors. vs. State of T. N. and ors., AIR 2002 SC 1334 . In para No. 10 of the Padmasundara Rao (supra), the Supreme Court has held as follows : "10. It may be pointed out that the stipulation regarding the urgency in terms of section 5A of the Act has no role to play when the period of limitation under section 6 is reckoned. In para No. 10 of the Padmasundara Rao (supra), the Supreme Court has held as follows : "10. It may be pointed out that the stipulation regarding the urgency in terms of section 5A of the Act has no role to play when the period of limitation under section 6 is reckoned. The purpose for providing the period of limitation seems to be avoidance of inconvenience to a person whose land is sought to be acquired. Compensation gets pegged from the date of Notification under section 4(1). Section II provides that the valuation of the land has to be done on the date of publication of Notification under section 4(I). Section 23 deals with matters to be considered in determining the compensation. It provides that the market value of the land is to be fixed with reference to the date of publication of the Notification under section 4 (1) of the Act. The prescription of time limit in that background is, therefore, peremptory in nature... " (6) We, thus, have no hesitation in concluding that the judgment under review contains mistake and error of law apparent on the face of record and liable to be reviewed. We accordingly set aside the judgment dated 5-10-2002 and hold that the applicant is entitled to have acquisition proceedings quashed and set aside and the State cannot proceed to acquire the land of the applicant since Notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act is clearly barred by limitation provided by the first proviso to section 6. Secondly awards dated 17-4-2002 and 8-7-2004 in respect of the land in question are liable to be set aside and are accordingly set aside. Application allowed.