ORDER Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple, at Dwaraka Tirumala Village, West-Godavari District, is an important Hindu Religious Institution, in the State of Andhra Pradesh. For the development of the Temple, it became necessary to acquire the neighbouring buildings overran extent of Ac. 0.49 Vz cents, and vacant lands of 20 acres in Dwaraka Tirumal Village and 103 acres in Dorasanampadu Village. As regards Ac. 0.49 Vz cents covered by buildings and thatched sheds, notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') was issued in G.O.Ms.No. 233, Revenue (Endowment IV) Department, dated 23-2-2005, by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. For the vacant lands, referred to above, notification was issued in G.O.Ms.No. 170, dated 2-2-2005, by the same department. By invoking sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Act, enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with, in respect of lanos, covered by both the notifications. Declarations under Section 6 were published on 10-3-2005 and 16-3-2005, respectively. 2. The petitioners in W.P.No. 10145 of 2007 are owners of properties constructed upon 101;2 cents of land covered by notification in G.O.Ms.No. 233. Petitioners in the other writ petitions are the owners of the land to the extent of about 49 acres. All the petitioners herein together with certain other filed W.P.No. 5784 of 2005 and batch, challenging the acquisition proceedings on various grounds. Their principal contention was that the matter pertaining to acquisition of the lands for the Temple was pending for the last several years, and that there is no justification for dispensing with the enquiry\under Section 5-A of the Act. Other grounds were also urged. 3. Through common order dated 29-8-2005, this Court disposed of the writ petitions, repealing various contentions, but directing that the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, be held, During the pendency of the batch of writ petitions, awards in respect of other properties and lands, not covered by them, were passed. Writ Appeal No. 2133 of 2005 filed by one of the aggrieved parties was disposed of, leaving it open to the appellant therein to raise her objections during the course of enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. 4. It appears that the respondents issued notices under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act to the petitioners without publishing declaration under Section 6. The petitioners in W.P.No. 10145 of 2007 and others filed W.P.No. 27295 of 2005. 4. It appears that the respondents issued notices under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act to the petitioners without publishing declaration under Section 6. The petitioners in W.P.No. 10145 of 2007 and others filed W.P.No. 27295 of 2005. The writ petition was allowed, and it was directed that further steps shall be taken only after publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act. After the enquiry under Section 5-A was held, the Government published declaration under Section 6 of the Act, on 12-4-2007, in respect of the properties and lands, that were the subject matter of W.P.No. 5784 of 2005 and batch. The petitioners challenge the same. 5. The principal contention urged by the petitioners is that the declaration under Section 6 was published, long after expiry of one year from the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, and that it is not sustainable in law. They contend that, even if the period during which the writ petitions filed at various stages were pending, is excluded; the publication of the declaration is done long after expiry of one year, prescribed under second proviso to Section 6 of the Act. They also repeat the contentions, as regards the desirability or otherwise of the acquisition of land. 6. On behalf of the respondents, counter affidavits are filed. It is stated that, possession of all the structures, notified for acquisition, except two items owned by the petitioners in W.P.No. 10145 of 2007 was taken, and award was also passed. So far as the land is concerned, it is stated that possession of about 70 acres of land was . taken and the owners thereof were also paid compensation. The delay in publication of the declaration' under Section 6 of the Act, in respect of some of the properties is said to be on 'account of f the institution of various proceedings by the petitioners, from time to time. According to the respondents, the acquisition of the properties became y necessary, to provide proper amenities to the pilgrims and to undertake a systematic 5 development of the Temple. 7. Sri. V. Durga Prasad, learned counsel argued on behalf of the petitioners. According to the respondents, the acquisition of the properties became y necessary, to provide proper amenities to the pilgrims and to undertake a systematic 5 development of the Temple. 7. Sri. V. Durga Prasad, learned counsel argued on behalf of the petitioners. He submits that, Parliament stipulated the 5 period of one year for publication of r declaration under Section 6, from the date of notification, under Section 4(1) of the Act, and undisputedly, the timeframe has not e been adhered to, in the' instant case. He contends that even if the time during which the proceedings were pending before the Court is excluded, the declaration was published long after the expiry of one year. Learned counsel submits that any notification which is published beyond the stipulated time is without any legal effect, and the entire proceedings, including the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, to the extent of the lands of the petitioners, becomes illegal. He has also made submissions, touching on the merits of the matter and contends that the petitioners or cannot be denied their livelihood, in the name of providing comfort to the pilgrims. 8. Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and learned Standing Counsel for the Temple, on the other hand, submit that the acquisition of the lands in the neighbourhood of the Temple became necessary, in view of the substarttial increase in the number of pilgrims, that visit the Temple. They submit that all the contentions urged by the, petitioners, it touching on the merits, were repelled by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, and the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was held before the declaration was published. According to the learned counsel, compliance with the second proviso to Section 6 of the Act needs to be viewed in a different context, where declaration under that provision in respect of part of the lands covered by the same notification published under Section 4(1) of the Act, was published within time. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents rely upon precedents, in support of their contentions. 10. This is the third round of litigation, ever since the notifications under Section 4(1) of the Act were published, proposing to acquire the various properties, referred to above. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents rely upon precedents, in support of their contentions. 10. This is the third round of litigation, ever since the notifications under Section 4(1) of the Act were published, proposing to acquire the various properties, referred to above. The creation of facilities and providing the way for the chariot of the Temple needed acquisition of the neighbouring buildings, spread over an area of about 50 cents, and land to an extent of 120 acres. The owners of buildings spread over 40 cents and land of 70 acres did not raise any objection. Petitioners herein filed W.P.No. 5784 of 2005 and batch, assailing the acquisition proceedings. By the time the writ petitions were taken up for hearing, awards were passed as regards the properties of the persons, who did not raise any objection. The said batch of writ petitions was disposed of, with the following directions: "Para-12: Coming to the dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, as on this day, possession of the lands had not been taken and sufficient time has been elapsed since 4(1) notification. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to direct the 2nd respondent to afford opportunity to the writ petitioners and hold enquiry under Section 5-A of the L.A.Act. Para-13: In the light of the reasons recorded supra, the 2nd respondent herein is directed to afford an opportunity to the writ petitioners and to hold enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, in accordance with the law. Writ petitions are accordingly disposed of with the above directions. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court makes no orders as to costs". This order was affirmed by a Division Bench, in a writ appeal. 11. After the enquiry was conducted, respondents issued notice under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act, to the petitioners, without publishing declaration under Section 6. It appears that such a step was resorted to, because the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, to the extent of the lands and buildings of the petitioners, was not set aside, in the common order dated 29-8-2005. All the same, this Court in W.P.No. 27295 of 2005 has set aside the notice issued under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act. All the same, this Court in W.P.No. 27295 of 2005 has set aside the notice issued under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act. It was observed that further steps can be taken, only after a declaration under Section 6 of the Act is published. It is in this background, that the impugned declaration under Section 6 of the Act, dated 12-4-2007 was published. 12. The principal contention urged by the petitioners is that the declaration is barred by the time, stipulated under explanation to Section 6 of the Act. The provisions reads as under: . "Section 6: Declaration that land is required for a public purpose:- (1) Where the appropriate Government or the District Collector is satisfied that any particular land is needed for the purpose of construction, extension or improvement of any dwelling house for the poor, a declaration shall be made to that effect under the signature of a Secretary to such Government or any other officer duly authorized to certify their orders or the District Collector as the case may be, and different declarations may be made, from time to time, in respect of different parcels of land covered by the same notification under Section 4, sub-section (1). Provided that no such declaration shall be made unless the compensation to be awarded for such property is to be paid wholly or partly out of pubic revenues or some fund controlled or managed by a local authority. Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification under Section 4, subsection (1):- (i). published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1957 (1 of 1957), but before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the notification; (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 the 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. 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 1:- 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". (Sub-sections (2) and (3) are not necessary for this case. Hence omitted.) 13. At the first blush, it may appear that there is an infraction of the second proviso, in the instant case. However, an analysis of this provision, vis-a-vis. the facts of the case, may lead to a different conclusion. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court held time and again that any declaration filed under Section 6 of the Act, published after the time stipulated under the second proviso to Section 6 of the Act is illegal and cannot be sustained in law. Reference can be made to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Padma Sundara Rao (Dead) and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and others (1) 2003 (1) An.W.R. 543 (SC) = (2002) 3 SCC 533 and Om Prakash v. Union ~f 111dia and others (2) AIR 2010 SC 1068 , to mention a few. Similarly, this Court in K. Krishna Reddy and others v. Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authorihj, rep. by its Commissioner, Secunderabad and others (3) 2010 (3) AL T 113 took the same view. 15. If the facts are similar, in the sense that the notification under Section 6 of the Act published on an earlier occasion was set aside, that too in its entirety, and subsequent publication was made after expiry of one year from the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, even after excluding the period during which the proceedings were pending in the Court, the principle enunciated in the judgments referred to above; gets attracted straightaway. It is not so, in the instant case. 16. It has already been mentioned that by invoking Section 17(4) of the Act, Government dispensed with the enquiry under Section 50A and published notifications under Section 4(1) and 6 of the Act. The petitioners challenged the entire proceedings by filing W.P.No. 5784 of 2005 and batch. All the contentions raised by them, touching the merits, were repelled. However, the plea about dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act found favour with this Court, and the enquiry under that provision was directed to be held. It became necessary to set aside the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, at least to the extent if related to the properties of the petitioners; to pave the way for conducting enquiry under Section 5-A. For one reason or the other, no such direction or observation emerged. The result was that the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, in its entirety, remained intact. That obviously is the reason why, the respondents have issued notice under Sections 9(3) and 10, after conducting enquiry under Section 5 of the Act, without publication of declaration, afresh. When they challenged those notices, this Court held that, unless a declaration is issued afresh, notices ought not to have been given. 17. It is a different matter that declaration in respect of the lands was published at a later point of time. The fact however remains that the declarations that were published on 10-3-2005 and 16-3-2005, by the respondents, remained intact, and were not set aside, to the extent of the properties of the petitioners, even by now. Hence, there is a compliance, at least on technical parlance, with the explanation to Section 6 of the Act, vis-a-vis the properties of the petitioners. 18. There is another factor that militates against the petitioners, and it is this: Assuming that the declaration in respect of the properties of the petitioners stood impliedly set aside, with the holding of enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and subsequent publication of another declaration, the fact remains that as regards the rest of the properties, it was published within the stipulated time, so much so, award was also passed within months. A case in which the declaration under Section 6 is set aside in its entirety, on the one hand, and the one, where it is set aside in respect of part of the land proposed to be acquired, on the other hand, warrant different approaches, in the context of enforcing the mandate under explanation to Section 6. The reason is that, with the publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the rights of the owner of the land, to a substantial extent get frozen, be it, as regards the future escalation of market value, or his right to alienate the property, etc. Instances are not lacking, where the owners of the land had to suffer on account of the undue delay in publication of the declaration and other proceedings, such as passing of award. The market value, that remained decades together prior to the passing of award, used to be paid. To remedy that situation, timeframes were stipulated at two levels: One for publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, and the other, for passing of award. Sections 6 and 11 of the Act were correspondingly amended. The object underlying these amendments is to require the authorities to be alert, or to face the eventuality of, the-1apse of the entire proceedings. 19. If no declaration was published at all, within the stipulated period of one year, the inevitable conclusion is that the notification under Section 4(1) itself would lapse. Same result would follow. Where a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was set aside in its entirety. Where, however it is set aside in part of the land and kept intact as regards the balance, it is difficult to imagine the same consequences. The reason is that the promptitude on the part of the appropriate Government, or its delegate in publishing the declaration within the stipulated time and compliance with second proviso to Section 6, already exists, in respect of part of the hind, covered by the seam draft notification. 20. Though it may be desirable to insist on the publication of the declaration, to the extent it was set aside earlier, also, within the stipulated time, duly giving credit to the period, during which, the proceedings were pending in the Court, one cannot remain oblivious to the hurdles, that come to be created in one form or the other. 20. Though it may be desirable to insist on the publication of the declaration, to the extent it was set aside earlier, also, within the stipulated time, duly giving credit to the period, during which, the proceedings were pending in the Court, one cannot remain oblivious to the hurdles, that come to be created in one form or the other. The instant case itself provides an example. There was almost an uncertain situation about the requirement to publish declaration afresh, vis-a-vis the lands of the petitioners, because the earlier declarations were not set aside, in W.P.No. 8784 of 2005 and batch. The respondents felt, and in a way, for valid reasons, that, it is not necessary to publish declarations since no part of the earlier ones, was set aside. It is only when the petitioners raised on objection to the issuance of the notice under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the same was sustained by this Court, that steps had to be taken for publication of declaration afresh, to the extent of the properties of the petitioners. This naturally needed movement of files and proposals from one table to another, culminating in publication, but with delay. Therefore, the fresh publication of a declaration under Section 6 of the Act where it relates to part of the lands covered by the same draft notification, under Section 4(1) of the Act; needs a different approach, vis-a-vis the compliance with second proviso to Section 6 of the Act. 21. Identical situations arise as. regards passing of awards. Section 11 of the Act mandates that an award must, be passed within two years from the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, in. default, the proceedings lapse. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Mahalakshmi Ammal (4) AIR 1996 SC 866 the Supreme Court dealt with a case, where an award was passed within the stipulated time in respect of part of the acquired land, and as regards the balance, the awarded was passed beyond that. It was held that, with the passing of award in respect of part of land within the stipulated time, the requirement under Section 11-A of the Act stands complied with, and the award as regards the other part passed afterwards, does not get vitiated. The same analogy can be applied to the facts of this case also. It was held that, with the passing of award in respect of part of land within the stipulated time, the requirement under Section 11-A of the Act stands complied with, and the award as regards the other part passed afterwards, does not get vitiated. The same analogy can be applied to the facts of this case also. From the same judgment, another aspect that can be culled out is that, in case an errata is published to draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, adding some more items of land to a notification, which was already published, the timeframe stipulated under Section 6 or 11-A of the Act would stand relaxed. The Supreme Court held that errata would date back to the original notification. 22. Learned counsel for the petitioners advanced arguments touching on merits also, such as, that the petitioners would be denied of their livelihood, if their properties are acquired, etc. All these contentions were examined in the earlier round of litigation and were rejected by this Court. f\t any rate, the difficulty, if any, faced by the owners of small part of the vast extent of acquired land, cannot be a ground to interfere with the proceedings. It the properties of the petitioners are excluded, the purpose of acquiring rest of the property would be defeated. 23. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.