JUDGMENT : P. VELMURUGAN, J. 1. The writ appeal is arising out of the judgment dated 22.03.2013 in W.P.No.19489 of 2004. 2. It would be appropriate to notice that the aforementioned Writ Petition has been preferred by the appellant for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the first respondent in and by his proceedings issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in G.O.Ms.No.109, CT & RE, dated 15.03.1996 and declaration passed in G.O.Ms.No.281, Tamil Nadu Development Culture and Religious Endowment, dated 25.11.2003, quash the same and consequently direct the authorities not to acquire the lands situated in Survey No.812/14 with an extent of 0.09 hectares and Survey No.814/6 with an extent of 0.04.5 hectares respectively in Palani Village, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District. 3. Facts culled out in brief for the disposal of the writ appeal are as follows:- The appellant is the owner of the lands situated in Survey Nos.812/1D and 814/1A1 with an extent of 0.09 hectares and 0.04.5 hectares, respectively, in Palani Taluk, Dindigul District. Notification, dated 15.03.1996 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1983, (hereinafter will be referred to as "the Act") was issued by the first respondent, proposing to acquire the said lands, along with the land belonging to other persons for the purpose of development of Palani Devasthanam. Pursuant to the said notification, a declaration has been passed in G.O.Ms.No.120, CT & RE Department, dated 10.04.1997. The said declaration has been challenged before this Court in a Writ Petition in W.P.No.892 of 1998 and this Court has quashed the declaration. In view of the same, proceedings have been initiated by the second respondent and an order under Section 5(b) of the Act was passed on 08.09.2003, proposing to acquire the lands in Survey Nos.812/2 and 814 belonging to the petitioner alone, thereby leaving the lands belonging to other persons. However, the respondents rejected the said request and over-ruled the objections of the appellant and pursuant to the same, a declaration has been passed by the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.281, Tamil Nadu Development Culture and Religious Endowment, dated 25.11.2003 under Section 6 of the Act. Hence, the appellant has filed the Writ Petition. 4. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge was pleased to dispose of the Writ Petition. The concluding paragraph is extracted hereunder:- "15. Hence, the appellant has filed the Writ Petition. 4. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge was pleased to dispose of the Writ Petition. The concluding paragraph is extracted hereunder:- "15. Since the issue involved in this Writ Petition requires an urgency, considering the fact that the lands in question are going to be used for public purpose, this Court may not deem fit to again direct the Government to issue notification and acquire the lands in question. Therefore, I am of the view that the time of fixing the compensation, for this case, shall be taken as 30.06.2012 and on that basis, the compensation can be arrived at. 16. With the above directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected WPMP is closed." 5. Aggrieved against the order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant has filed the present Writ Appeal. 6. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned senior counsel on either side and perused the materials placed on record. 7. It is not in dispute that the appellant is the owner of the lands situated in Survey Nos.812/1D and 814/1A1 with an extent of 0.09 hectares and 0.04.5 hectares, respectively, in Palani Taluk, Dindigul District. It is also not in dispute that the notification, dated 15.03.1996 under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued by the first respondent, proposing to acquire the said lands, along with the land belonging to other persons for the purpose of development of Palani Devasthanam. Pursuant to the said notification, a declaration has been issued in G.O.Ms.No.120, CT & RE Department, dated 10.04.1997. Challenging the said notification, the appellant has filed the Writ Petition in W.P.No.892 of 1998 before this Court. This Court, by order dated 27.11.2002, allowed the Writ Petition by setting aside the Section 6 declaration. 8. According to the appellant since the earlier notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 15.07.1996; and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 10.04.1997; 269 days have already been lapsed from the last date of 4(1) Notification and therefore only 96 days was available for the respondents to issue a fresh declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The fresh declaration under Section 6 of the Act ought to have been issued by 02.03.2003 but the same was issued only on 25.11.2003. The fresh declaration under Section 6 of the Act ought to have been issued by 02.03.2003 but the same was issued only on 25.11.2003. Hence, the declaration is totally barred by limitation. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court Padma Sundara Rao v. State of T.N. [ (2002) 3 SCC 533 ], the learned Senior counsel for the appellant would submit that where declaration under Section 6 is quashed by Court, fresh declaration must be issued within the same limitation period prescribed under the first proviso and that period cannot be construed to commence from the date of receipt of the order of the court quashing the declaration in view of the clear language of the proviso. 9. According to the respondents, the appellant herself has voluntarily agreed to donate the lands in question to the Temple for erection and expanding the Temple's rope car facility for the pilgrims. It is useful to extract the relevant portion of the consent letter given by the appellant :- Any Other Language 10. Further, it is useful to extract the following portion in the counter affidavit :- "6.... At the time of 5 A enquiry the petitioner has not raised any objection for the acquisition proceedings and accepted to handover the entire lands to Devasthanam without cost, with a condition to allot 7 cents of lands which has already been acquired and situated adjacent to her land in same Survey No.812/3. The request of the petitioner has been sent to the requisitioning department on 01.08.2003. But the requisitioning department has stated that the request of the petitioner could not be considered as the entire lands are fully needed for the said purpose. ..." 11. From the above extracts, it is clear that the appellant consented to handover the entire lands to Devasthanam without cost, with a condition that 7 cents of land should be given to her, which was rejected by the Temple and accepting the contention of the beneficiary temple, the Land Acquisition Officer rejected her claim. ..." 11. From the above extracts, it is clear that the appellant consented to handover the entire lands to Devasthanam without cost, with a condition that 7 cents of land should be given to her, which was rejected by the Temple and accepting the contention of the beneficiary temple, the Land Acquisition Officer rejected her claim. When the appellant has given her consent to handover the lands on condition and the said fact is also proved on a bare perusal of the counter affidavit in paragraph No.6, we could not understand as to how the learned Single Judge has observed that the appellant has voluntarily agreed to give the lands in question to the Temple and therefore, the said finding is liable to be set-aside. 12. It is relevant to quote Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act:- "6. Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification under section 4, sub-section (1),- (i) *** (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.” 13. It is not in dispute that Section 4(1) Notification was issued on 15.07.1996 and Section 6 declaration was issued on 10.04.1997. Therefore, 269 days (i.e. 15.07.1996 to 10.04.1997) have been taken for issuing Section 6 Declaration from the last date of publication of 4(1) Notification. Challenging the Section 6 Declaration, the appellant filed a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.No.892 of 1998 and the same was allowed by order dated 27.11.2002. Since the Writ Petition was allowed on 27.11.2002 and 269 days have already been taken for issuing Section 6 Declaration from the last date of publication of 4(1) Notification, and as per the Act, only 96 days (365 days - 269 days) was available to issue a fresh declaration. The crucial date for issuing Section 6 Declaration is 04.03.2003. However, Section 6 declaration was issued beyond the period of one year viz., 25.11.2003. In fact, a Constitution Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Padma Sundara Rao v. State of T.N, 2001-3-L.W. 427 : (2002) 3 SCC 533 clearly supports the submission of the learned Senior counsel for the appellant that the proviso to Section 6 is mandatory, and hence the Notification under Section 6 dated 25.11.2003 is time barred. 14. In fact, a Constitution Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Padma Sundara Rao v. State of T.N, 2001-3-L.W. 427 : (2002) 3 SCC 533 clearly supports the submission of the learned Senior counsel for the appellant that the proviso to Section 6 is mandatory, and hence the Notification under Section 6 dated 25.11.2003 is time barred. 14. The learned counsel for the respondents by placing reliance of the judgment of the Hon'ble supreme Court Haji Saeed Khan v. State of U.P. [ (2001) 9 SCC 513 , would submit that with regard to declaration within the time limit prescribed under Section 6 Declaration, the date of notification can be postponed from the date of notification to the date of taking possession for fixing the compensation in the interests of justice. It is relevant to extract paragraph No.11 of the said judgment:- "11. After considering the various contentions that were raised before us, we felt it reasonable that, having regard to the peculiar facts of these cases, interests of justice would be met if the date of issue of Section 4(1) notification is shifted from 30-3-1995 to 15-6-1998, for purposes of fixing the market value of the land owned or possessed by the appellants before us. When the suggestion came from the Bench, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants as well as the learned Additional Solicitor-General appearing for the State of U.P. as well as the other counsel for the Town Development Authority also felt that this suggestion was reasonable. 15. From the above, it is very clear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court gave a suggestion to the counsel on either side that the date of notification can be postponed from the date of notification to the date of taking possession for fixing the compensation and they felt that the suggestion was reasonable and therefore, it was accepted. Further, in the above referred case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "The reason why the Court made the above suggestion is that possession has already been taken from the appellants on 15-6-1998. Any fresh direction at this stage might prejudice the interests of both sides. Already there has been litigation for nearly ten years when earlier notifications were questioned or lapsed. Any fresh direction at this stage might prejudice the interests of both sides. Already there has been litigation for nearly ten years when earlier notifications were questioned or lapsed. Therefore, instead of deciding the matter on merits, it is hereby suggested to the counsel on both sides that it would be reasonable if they agreed that the market value of the property could be fixed treating 15-6-1998 as the date of notification under Section 4(1). In fact, out of a large extent of land that was sought to be acquired, the appellants are interested only in small pieces of land and in the event the proceedings being quashed, so far as these small pieces of land are concerned, that would upset the entire purpose of the land acquisition. These are the reasons why the parties herein are suggested the parties to accept 15-6-1998 as the date of fixing the market value.", whereas in the present case award was not passed and possession has not been taken. 16. Since the learned Single Judge found that the declaration was issued out of time, it was not legally correct to direct the respondents to pay compensation fixing the date as 30.06.2012. Once the acquisition proceedings is lapsed, there is no scope for issuing a direction to award compensation. 17. Further, it is pertinent to mention that the Writ Petition was filed on 07.07.2004 and the order passed by the learned Single Judge was on 22.03.2013. In other words, no Award was passed before the New Act came into force on 01.01.2014. 18. It is useful to extract Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013:- " 24. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of Land Acquisition Proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, - (a) where no award under Section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or (b) where an award under said Section 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where an award under the said Section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act" 19. Admittedly, in this case, neither award has been passed nor possession has been taken. In view of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be given effect to. 20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we set aside the order dated 22.03.2013 in W.P.No.19489 of 2004. Since the land is still required for a larger public purpose and Section 4(1) notification was not challenged. It is open to the respondents to proceed further under the provisions of Act 30 of 2013. 21. In the result, the Writ Appeal is allowed. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.