ORDER : Petitioners are owners of land bearing Survey No.202 measuring 18 acres 27 guntas and Survey No.204 measuring 19 acres 17 guntas of Kengeri Village, Bangaluru South Taluk, Bangalore District. Their lands were proposed to be acquired by the Karnataka Housing Board by issuing preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894(for short “Act”) on 12.3.2010. The same was published in the Karnataka Gazette on 22.4.2010. This was followed by final notification issued under Section 6(1) of the Act dated 9.3.2012 published in the Karnataka Gazette on 26.4.2012. Petitioners are calling in question the said notifications mainly on the ground that the final notification dated 9.3.2012 issued under Section 6(1) of the Act was beyond the period of one year from the date of Section 4(1) notification published in the gazette on 22.4.2010 and therefore, in terms of the proviso (ii) to Section 6(1) of the Act, the final declaration made does not have the effect of affecting the rights of the petitioners. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that sub-clause(2) of Section 6 of the Act has to be construed keeping in mind the intention of the Legislature in fixing the time frame for issuance of Section 6(1) notification within one year from the date of publication of Section 4(1) notification. In such an event, the explanation “last of the dates of giving such public notice” used in sub-clause(2) will have to be construed as the last of the dates of publications which are though not simultaneous with the different modes of publication but are contemporaneous with the publication in the gazette. In this context it is specifically urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that action of the respondents in publishing substance of the notification under Section 4(1) in the Village Chawadi on 23.5.2011 cannot be regarded as the last of the date of publication for the purpose of computing the period of one year from the date of publication of the Section 4(1) notification till the date of 6(1) notification. In paragraph (14) of the writ petitions the petitioners have specifically contended that only with a view to get over the period of limitation statutorily fixed under Section 6(1) the second respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer appeared to have prepared the publication of Section 4(1) notification dated 12.3.2010 in the Village Chawadi on 23.5.2011. In paragraph (14) of the writ petitions the petitioners have specifically contended that only with a view to get over the period of limitation statutorily fixed under Section 6(1) the second respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer appeared to have prepared the publication of Section 4(1) notification dated 12.3.2010 in the Village Chawadi on 23.5.2011. It is alleged that this action was a suspect in law and not a bonafide action on the part of the second respondent. It is further alleged that publication of the substance of the notification in the village chawadi appeared to have been made with a view to bring the final notification dated 9.3.2012 within the period of one year. 3. In support of the contention that the acquisition proceedings are bad for violating the time frame prescribed under Section 6(1) of the Act, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the following judgments:- (1) Padma Sundara Rao(Dead) and others .vs. Station of T.N. and others, (2002) 3 SCC 533 . The attention of the Court is invited to paragraphs 11 and 12 of this judgment. (2) Anil Kumar Gupta .Vs. State of Bihar and others, (2012) 12 SCC 443. The attention of the Court is invited to paragraphs 18 to 20. (3) Radhy Shyam and others .vs. State of U.P. and others, (2011) 5 SCC 553 . The attention of the Court is invited to paragraph 84. (4) Devender Kumar Tyagi and others vs. State of U.P. and others, (2011) 9 SCC 164 . The attention of the Court is invited to paragraphs 12 and 13. (5) Ashok Kumar and others .vs. State of Haryana and another, (2007) 3 SCC 470 . The attention of the Court is invited to paragraph 17. Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the case of Deepak Pahwa and others .vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and others, (1984) 4 SCC 308 . 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Karnataka Housing Board Sri. Ashok Haranahalli has strongly contended that it is last of the publications which has to be taken into consideration for reckoning the period of one year and if that is done, the final declaration published on 9.3.2012 was well within the time frame prescribed. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Karnataka Housing Board Sri. Ashok Haranahalli has strongly contended that it is last of the publications which has to be taken into consideration for reckoning the period of one year and if that is done, the final declaration published on 9.3.2012 was well within the time frame prescribed. He urges that the concept of reasonable time cannot be imported in the facts and circumstances of the case while considering the different steps required to be taken in law by getting the public notice issued and published by following different modes. Elaborating this contention, it is urged that publication in Village Chawadi is a mandatory requirement and therefore, in the absence of any statutory prescription requiring such publication to be made within the prescribed period no fault can be found with the authorities in delaying substance of publication of 4(1) notification in the Village Chawadi. He places reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Raghubir Dayal (1995) 1 SCC 133 to contend that gap of more than six months’ between the publication of the notification in the official gazette and publication of the substance of the notification in the locality would not render the notification invalid. 5. Upon hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on consideration of the entire materials on record, the main question that falls for consideration is :- Whether the notification dated 9.3.2012 issued under Section 6(1) of the Act can be said to be within the period of one year and therefore, in conformity with the provisions of Section 6(1) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case? 6. The requirement of publication of 6(1) notification within one year from the last of the publications of 4(1) notification has been introduced by amending Act 68/84 with a laudable object. The statement of objects and reasons appended to the amending Act 68/1984 make it very clear that individuals and institutions who are unavoidably to be deprived of their property rights in land need to be adequately compensated for the loss keeping in view the sacrifice they have to make for the larger interests of the community. Pendency of acquisition proceedings for long period often caused hardship to the affected parties and rendered unrealistic the scale of compensation offered to them. Pendency of acquisition proceedings for long period often caused hardship to the affected parties and rendered unrealistic the scale of compensation offered to them. Therefore, it was intended to restructure the legislative frame work for acquisition of land. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid objects and also the recommendations, certain changes were brought by way of amendment to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and a time limit of one year was proposed to be provided for completion of formalities between the issuance of preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and declaration for acquisition of specified land under Section 6(1) of the Act. 7. The amended provisions of Section 6(1) as amended by Act No.68/84 reads as under:- 6. Declaration that land is required for a public purpose.- (1) Subject to the provision of Part VII of this Act, 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 a Secretary to such Government or of some officer duly authorized to certify its orders and different declarations may be made from time to time in respect of different parcels of any land covered by the same notification under section 4, subsection (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 (1)- (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 (68 of 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 (68 of 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. 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 (1), 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.] 8. It is thus clear from the provisions contained under sub clause 1 of Section 6 of the Act that prior to amendment of 1984 and after the introduction of Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967 (1 of 1967), period prescribed within which final declaration was required to be issued was 3 years from the publication of 4(1) notification. After the amendment by Amendment Act 68/1984, this period has been reduced to one year. 9. In the present case, Section 4(1) notification has been issued on 12.3.2010 after the Amendment Act 68/1984 came into force. It was published in the gazette on 22.4.2010. Publication in the two newspapers was on 21.5.2010, but the substance of the notification was published in ‘Chawadi’ on 23.5.2011. Therefore, for the purpose of present case, the period of one year is the determining factor. Hence, court has to see whether declaration made under Section 6(1) of the Act was after the expiry of one year from the date of publication of Section 4(1) notification. 10. Section 4(1) of the Act as inserted by the Amendment Act 68/1984 makes it clear that public notice of the substance of such notification has to be given at convenient place of the locality and last of the dates of such publication and giving of such public notice, shall be referred to as date of publication of the notification. Therefore, for reckoning the period of one year, necessarily last of the dates including publication in the locality (Chawadi) has to be reckoned. 11. But, the question would be if the publication in the Chawadi is done after unreasonable gap of period from the date of publication in the gazette and in the newspaper, whether respondent-authorities can take advantage of their own omission in unreasonably delaying the publication in Chawadi. 11. But, the question would be if the publication in the Chawadi is done after unreasonable gap of period from the date of publication in the gazette and in the newspaper, whether respondent-authorities can take advantage of their own omission in unreasonably delaying the publication in Chawadi. It is in this context, facts of the case have to be kept in mind. 12. As already pointed above, publication in Chawadi was made on 23.5.2011 i.e., after a gap of one year from the date of publication in the newspaper. While the gap between the date of publication in the gazette and newspaper is only one month but gap between the date of publication in the newspaper and date of publication in Chawadi is one year. 13. The language employed in the statute makes it clear that intention of the legislature was to prohibit any delay of more than one year between the date of publication of Section 4(1) notification and date of issuance of declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act. Intention is very clear, in that legislature prohibits undue delay by fixing the maximum period in issuing final declaration as one year. Authorities, who are entrusted with the duties and functions of effecting different modes of publication including publication in Chawadi have to ensure that same is done without causing inordinate delay. 14. The different modes of publication have to be done contemporaneously. That means under natural circumstances, there may be some gap of time between the different modes of publication. For example, after the publication of 4(1) notification in the official gazette, for getting the same published in the newspaper, it may require some time. Possibly there could be no serious objection for such unintentional and bonafide delay. 15. Petitioners have specifically contended, that in the instant case delayed publication has been resorted with a malafide intention to defeat the legislative intent and to deprive the petitioners of the time frame prescribed under law. These allegations have remained un-rebutted. In such circumstances, it cannot be held that period of one year has to be computed from such delayed date of publication in Chawadi. Such publication is no publication in the eye of law because it has been done after the expiry of one year from the date of publication in the newspaper. These allegations have remained un-rebutted. In such circumstances, it cannot be held that period of one year has to be computed from such delayed date of publication in Chawadi. Such publication is no publication in the eye of law because it has been done after the expiry of one year from the date of publication in the newspaper. It is not as if the authorities have to wait for sufficient intervals in effecting different modes of publication. When the law mandates that publication has to be effected within a time frame, as otherwise, whole process of acquisition gets nullified, it is required of the authorities to expedite their machinery and ensure compliance of all modes of publications well within the time frame prescribed. 16. Learned counsel for petitioners is right and justified in placing reliance on the judgments, in this regard, in the case of Padma Sundara Rao (Dead) and others vs. State of T.N. and others, (2002) 3 SCC 533 . It deals with the prescription of one year time frame. In paragraph 12 of this judgment, it is stated that language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of legislative intent. The first and primary rule of construction is that intention of the legislature must be found in the words used in the legislation itself. 17. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Deepak Pahwa and others vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and others, (1984) 4 SCC 308 has dealt with this question though with reference to the un-amended provision under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. It has stated in paragraph 3 of the judgment as under: “3. It may be noticed at once that Section 4(1) does not prescribe that public notice of the substance of the notification should be given in the locality simultaneously with the publication of the notification in the Official Gazette or immediately thereafter. Publication in the Official Gazette and public notice in the locality are two vital steps required to be taken Under Section 4(1) before proceeding to take the next step of entering upon the land Under Section 4(2). The time factor is not a vital element of Section 4(1) and there is no warrant for reading the words 'simultaneouly' or 'immediately thereafter' into Section 4(1). The time factor is not a vital element of Section 4(1) and there is no warrant for reading the words 'simultaneouly' or 'immediately thereafter' into Section 4(1). Publication in the Official Gazette and public notice in the locality are the essential elements of Section 4(1) and not the simultaneity or immediacy of the Publication and the Public Notice. But since the steps contemplated by Section 4(2) cannot be undertaken unless publication is made and public notice given as contemplated by Section 4(1), it is implicit that the publication and the public notice must be contemporaneous though not simultaneous or immediately after one another. Naturally contemporneity may involve a gap of time and by the very nature of the things, the publication in the Official Gazette and the public notice in the locality must necessarily be separated by a gap of time. This does not mean that the publication and the public notice may be separated by along interval of time. What is necessary, is that the continuity of action should not appear to be broken by a deep gap. If there is publication in the Gazette and if there is public notice in the locality, the requirements of Section 4(1) must be held to be satisfied unless the two are unlinked from each other by a gap of time so large as may lead one to the prima facie conclusion of lack of bona fides in the proceedings for acquisition. If the notification and the public notice are separated by such a large gap of time it may become necessary to probe further to discover if there is any cause for the delay and if the delay has caused prejudice to anyone.” 18. Therefore, what is necessary is that there must be continued action and it should not appear that the action was broken by deep time gap. Publication in the gazette and publication in the newspaper as also in the locality must be held to be satisfied as provided under Section 4(1) of the Act unless they are so disconnected or unlinked from each other by gap of time so large as to lead to a conclusion that it lacked bonafides. 19. In the instant case, gap between the two i.e. the date of publication in newspaper and date of publication in Chawadi is so that apparently it lacks bonafides. 19. In the instant case, gap between the two i.e. the date of publication in newspaper and date of publication in Chawadi is so that apparently it lacks bonafides. As rightly pointed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the said gap suggests suspicion of an intention on the part of the authorities to defeat the provision of law. Therefore, the date of publication in the Chawadi, in the case on hand, cannot be reckoned for computing one year period. 20. In the instant case, the last of the dates of publication for the purpose of computing one year has to be the date of publication in the newspaper. The said date is the last of the contemporaneous publications that has to be taken into consideration. In that event there would be gap of 1 year 11 months (i.e., from 21.5.2010 to 9.3.2012). Therefore, it has to be held that the declaration under Section 6(1) is not made within one year from the last of the dates of publication of 4(1) notification. Hence, the instant acquisition proceedings are rendered invalid. 21. Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed. The acquisition proceedings are declared as illegal and are hereby set aside. 22. In the light of the conclusion reached by this Court regarding validity of acquisition proceedings on this legal ground, other contentions urged by learned counsel for the petitioners need not be gone into, as petitioners have succeeded on the basis of the first contention advanced.