ORDER 1. These writ petitions have been filed challenging the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in proceedings ROC No.G2/6911/2011 (SW), dated 6.10.2011 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act proposing to acquire the lands of the petitioners viz., Acs.4-97 cents in RS Nos.767/1A, 767/3, 768/2 and 768/3; Acs.5-71 cents in RS Nos.766/1, 766/2 and 768/1; Acs.4-67 cents in Sy.Nos.713/IB, 715/2, 716/1 and 716/2C; and Ac.1-90 cents in RS No.1307/1 of Achanta Village and Mandal, West Godavari District, for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections under Indiramma Programme, Phase-III, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The main objection of the petitioners is that when there are alternative lands available in vast extents, the respondents are wholly unjustified in acquiring the lands in question which are admittedly fertile double crop lands. 3. While dealing with this objection of the petitioners, respondent No.2-District Collector, West Godavari, has unequivocally admitted that there are many Government poramboke lands and endowment lands, but as the "Same are in the prohibited category in the prohibitory orders book, they are not fit for house sites. 4. In my prima facie opinion, this reasoning of the District Collector is untenable. A prohibitory book is maintained for the purpose of prohibiting assignments or grant of pattas to private persons in respect of the lands entered therein. When the Government itself wants house sites to be granted to the needy persons, there is no reason why it cannot make available its own lands for the said purpose. The reasoning of the District Collector suggests that since the lands are included in the prohibitory order book, they are not fit for house sites and not that the lands themselves are not useful for construction of houses. If the respondents desire, they can always change the category of the lands and delete them from the prohibitory orders book. When the lands belonging to the petitioners are fertile double crop wet lands, I do not find any justification whatsoever for the respondents to acquire such lands leaving out several Government poramboke lands. On this ground alone, the impugned notification is liable to be set-aside. 5. When the lands belonging to the petitioners are fertile double crop wet lands, I do not find any justification whatsoever for the respondents to acquire such lands leaving out several Government poramboke lands. On this ground alone, the impugned notification is liable to be set-aside. 5. There is one other reason for setting aside the acquisition proceedings, namely, that the respondents failed to make the declaration under Section 6 of the Act within one year of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Admittedly, the last of the publications of the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act was made on 18.10.2011 and the first of the publications of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made in the West Godavari District Gazette on 22.10.2012, which is beyond the period of one year of the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. This Court, by its detailed common order dated 6.2.2013 in WP Nos.1616 and 5119 of 2012, held that the publication in the first instance before the expiry of the one year period from the date of issue of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act will satisfy the requirement of Section 6 of the Act. In this case, this test is not satisfied as none of the modes of the publication was made on or before 18.10.2011. Thus, the land acquisition proceedings themselves have lapsed. 6. For both the above mentioned reasons, the impugned notification is set aside and the writ petitions are allowed. 7. As a sequel, all the pending interlocutory applications in the respective writ petitions are disposed of as infructuous.