ORDER : In this petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:- "(i) Quash the Preliminary Notification dated: 12.04.2013 vide No. LAAQCR18/2012-13/C.NO. 102443 vide Annexure-'A', and the final notification published dated: 25.06.2015 in G.O.No. 35 Bhoo.Swa.Dha. 2014 dated: 25.11.2014 as Sy No. 58/2P1 measuring about 0.22.50 Acres of Permannur Village, Ullala, Managalore, D.K. District, vide Annexure-'B' and further proceedings pursuant thereto int eh interest of justice and equity. (ii) Issue any other writ or order and grant such other and further relief as this Hon'ble deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case." 2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the documents produced by the petitioner and the other material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that having regard to the fact that the final notification under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act of 1894') was issued on 25.06.2015 after a lapse of two years and two months after issuance of the preliminary notification dated 12.04.2013, the impugned notifications and acquisition proceedings pursuant thereto, deserve to be quashed for non issuance of the final notification within the mandatory period of one year from the date of the preliminary notification. It was submitted that the period during which the interim order dated 05.02.2014 passed by this Court in W.P.5953/2014 was in force can not be excluded since the said interim order did not attract explanation 1 to Section 6(1) of the Act. Secondly, it is contended that necessary enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 was not conducted prior to issuance of final declaration under Section 6(1) and consequently, the acquisition proceedings are vitiated on this ground also. Thirdly, it was submitted that the enquiry mandated under Section 5-A is not an empty formality and in the facts of the instant case, the said enquiry having not been conducted in accordance with law, the acquisition proceedings deserve to be quashed. Thirdly, it was submitted that the enquiry mandated under Section 5-A is not an empty formality and in the facts of the instant case, the said enquiry having not been conducted in accordance with law, the acquisition proceedings deserve to be quashed. It is further contended that in the light of the undisputed fact that the impugned award was passed only on 15.03.2019 after a lapse of about 3 years 9 months from the date of the final notification dated 25.06.2015, the impugned award having not been passed within the period of 2 years from the date of issuance of final notification dated 25.06.2015 as required under Section 6(1) of the Act of 1894, the acquisition proceedings stood lapsed and deserve to be quashed on this ground also. Alternatively, it is contended that even under the new Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'the RFCTLARR Act') , the award ought to have been passed within a period of 12 months from the date of final notification and in the absence of the said period of 12 months being extended and notified as required under Section 25 of the RFCTLARR Act, the impugned award is vitiated and deserves to be quashed on this ground also. It is therefore contended that the impugned notifications and the acquisition proceedings pursuant thereto deserve to be quashed. In support of his contentions, learned counsel places reliance on the following decisions:- 1. Women’s Education Trust and another vs. State of Haryana and others – (2013)8 SCC 99 ; 2. Devendra Kumar Tyagi and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh – (2011)9 SCC 164 ; 3. Ashok Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana and another – (2007)3 SCC 470 ; 4. Sachidananda Swamigalu Sri Guru Honnappa Devaru vs State of Karnataka – ILR 2002 KAR 3902; 5. State of U.P and others vs Rajiv Gupta and another – (1994)5 SCC 686 ; 6. Mulchand Khanumal Khatri vs State of Gujarat and others – (2012)5 SCC 365 ; 7. Naganna and others vs State of Karnataka and others – ILR 1998 KAR 3503; 8. Smt.Andalamma vs State of Karnataka – ILR 2003 KAR 1466; 4. State of U.P and others vs Rajiv Gupta and another – (1994)5 SCC 686 ; 6. Mulchand Khanumal Khatri vs State of Gujarat and others – (2012)5 SCC 365 ; 7. Naganna and others vs State of Karnataka and others – ILR 1998 KAR 3503; 8. Smt.Andalamma vs State of Karnataka – ILR 2003 KAR 1466; 4. Per contra, learned HCGP for respondents 1 to 3 State as well as the respective learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 reiterated the various contentions and documents produced along with their respective statement of objections and submitted that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. It was specifically contended that there was an interim order passed by this Court on 05.02.2014 in W.P.5953/2014 which was filed by the petitioner herein challenging the preliminary notification published on 22.05.2013. The said interim order dated 05.02.2014 was in force till 02.08.2014 when the said W.P.5953/2014 was finally disposed off by this Court. It was therefore contended that if the aforesaid period from 05.02.2014 to 02.08.2014 is excluded, the final notification under Section 6(1) made on 25.11.2014 and published on 25.06.2015 was well within the prescribed period of 1 year as contemplated under explanation 1 to Section 6(1) and consequently, the said contention of the petitioner was liable to be rejected. In support of their contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on the following decisions:- (i) Sangappa Gurulingappa Sajjan vs. State of Karnataka and others – (1994) 4 SCC 145 ; (ii) Abhey Ram and others vs. Union of India – (1997)5 SCC 421 ; (iii) Urban Improvement Trust vs. Bheeru Lal and others– (2002)7 SCC 712 ; (iv) Raj Kumar Gandhi vs Chandigarh Administration – (2018) 7 SCC 763 ; (v) Special APMC vs N.Krishnappa and others – (2017)13 SCC 239 ; (vi) M.Suresh Kumar vs State of Karnataka – 2011 SCC OnLine Kar 4376; (vii) Balagouda and another vs State of Karnataka– ILR 2000 KAR 3469; (viii) Abdul usein Tayabali vs State of Gujarat – AIR 1968 SC 432 . 5. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 6. The material on record indicates that the petitioners are the owners of the subject land bearing Sy.No.58/2P1 measuring about 0.22.50 acres of Permannur village, Ullala, Mangalore, D.K.District. 5. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 6. The material on record indicates that the petitioners are the owners of the subject land bearing Sy.No.58/2P1 measuring about 0.22.50 acres of Permannur village, Ullala, Mangalore, D.K.District. On 12.04.2013, respondent No.2 issued a preliminary notification under Section 4 of the said Act of 1894 for acquisition of several lands for the purpose of construction of a wet well and sewage treatment plant. Pursuant to public notice dated 17.05.2013, issued in this regard, petitioner filed his detailed objections on 07.06.2013. 7. On 03.02.2014, W.P.No.5953/2014 was filed by the petitioner before this Court seeking quashing of the preliminary notification and the acquisition proceedings. On 05.02.2014, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court directed the parties to maintain status-quoin relation to the subject land. On 02.08.2014, the said W.P.No.5953/2014 was disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to put forth all contentions during the course of the enquiry to be conducted under Section 5-A of the said Act of 1894. 8. Pursuant thereto, the final declaration under Section 6 of the said Act of 1894 was published in the State Gazette on 25.06.2015. In this context, it is relevant to state that according to the respondents, the said declaration under Section 6 is alleged to have been made on 25.11.2014 which contention is seriously disputed by the petitioner according to whom the said declaration was made subsequently. It is however not in dispute that it was only on 07.07.2015 that said final declaration under section 6(1) was published in the news papers. 9. Subsequently, on 11.08.2015, the present petition was filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of both the preliminary and final notifications. On 03.09.2015, an interim order directing stay of dispossession if not already dispossessed was passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. In the first instance, by its order dated 09.02.2017, this Court disposed of the petition directing the respondents to consider the plea of the petitioner under Section 5-A of the said Act of 1894 and thereafter pass a fresh order. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred writ appeal in W.A.No.1782/2017. During the pendency of the said appeal, respondent No.3 submitted an enquiry report dated 17.07.2017 under Section 5-A of the said Act of 1894 in compliance of the aforesaid order dated 09.02.2017 passed by this Court. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred writ appeal in W.A.No.1782/2017. During the pendency of the said appeal, respondent No.3 submitted an enquiry report dated 17.07.2017 under Section 5-A of the said Act of 1894 in compliance of the aforesaid order dated 09.02.2017 passed by this Court. Subsequently, on 15.03.2019, the respondents passed the impugned award. It is also seen that subsequent to passing of the award, the Hon'ble Division Bench passed an order of status-quoin W.A.No.1782/2017 referred to supra. 10. By final order dated 14.07.2020 passed in W.A.No.1782/2017, the Hon'ble Division Bench set aside the aforesaid order dated 09.02.2017 passed in the present petition and remitted the matter back to the learned Single Judge for fresh disposal and restored the same to file by leaving open all rival contentions. 11. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it is necessary to state that the issue regarding the legality and validity of the impugned final declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act issued beyond the prescribed period of 1 year from the date of publication of the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) was not adjudicated upon by this Court either in its earlier order dated 09.02.2017 or by the Hon’ble Division Bench in its Order dated 14.07.2020 in W.A.1782/2017 while remanding the matter to the learned Single Judge. On the other hand, the Hon’ble Division Bench having noticed the fact that even the final declaration under Section 6(1) had been impugned in the present petition held that the same had not been not gone into by the learned Single Judge but also that the same had not been quashed before directing enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. In my considered opinion, the finding on this issue qua legality and validity of the final declaration under Section 6(1) will directly impact and affect the other issues and as such, I deem it just and appropriate to decide the said issue in the first instance before dealing with the other contentions of the parties. 12. In my considered opinion, the finding on this issue qua legality and validity of the final declaration under Section 6(1) will directly impact and affect the other issues and as such, I deem it just and appropriate to decide the said issue in the first instance before dealing with the other contentions of the parties. 12. The material on record indicates that except the date of making the final declaration under Section 6(1), the following facts are not in dispute: 25.04.2013 – Gazette Notification of Section 4(1) Notification; 22.05.2013 – Paper Publication of 4(1) Notification; 05.02.2014 – Interim Order in W.P.5953/2014 filed by Petitioner; 02.08.2014 – Final Order in W.P.5953/2014; Interim Order was in force for 178 Days; 25.11.2014 – Final Declaration under Section 6(1); Number of days from 22.05.2013 to 25.11.2014 – 553 days; Time gap excluding interim order: 553 days – 178 days = 375 days; 25.06.2015 – Gazette Notification of Final Declaration; Number of days from 22.05.2013 to 25.06.2015 – 763 days; Time gap excluding interim order: 763 days – 178 days = 585 days. 13. As stated supra, while petitioner contends that the final declaration was made only on 25.06.2015 by issuing the gazette notification, the State Government contends that it was made on 25.11.2014 as can be seen from the handwritten portion on the gazette notification dated 25.06.2015; however, except the said handwritten portion, respondents have not produced any other corroborative or supportive material to establish that the 6(1) declaration was made on 25.11.2014 itself; while in the statement of objections filed by the State, the date of the 6(1) declaration is conspicuously absent/missing, the respondent No.4 has stated that the 6(1) declaration was issued on 25.06.2015. 14. 14. In any event, the dispute between the parties as to whether the 6(1) declaration was issued on 25.11.2014 or 25.06.2015 is neither relevant nor material in the face of the undisputed fact that even if the date of 6(1) declaration is reckoned as 25.11.2014 as contended by the state, even after excluding the period of 178 days when the interim order was in force, the 6(1) declaration passed after 375 days(1 year 10 days) from the date of publication of the 4(1) notification was clearly beyond the prescribed mandatory period of 1 year as contemplated under proviso(ii) to section 6(1) of the Act, (see Devendra Kumar Tyagi and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh – (2011)9 SCC 164 ; Ashok Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana and another – (2007)3 SCC 470 ; Sachidananda Swamigalu Sri Guru Honnappa Devaru vs. State of Karnataka – ILR 2002 KAR 3902). 15. The contention urged by respondent No.4 that the interim order 19.11.2013 passed in W.P.56920/2013 filed by Mrs.Pauline Queeny Anand against the same preliminary notification prevented the respondents from issuing the final declaration till disposal of the said petition by common order dated 02.08.2014 along with W.P.5953/2014 filed by petitioner herein and that accordingly, if the period from 19.11.2013(supra) till 02.08.2014(supra) is excluded, the final declaration is within the prescribed period of 1 year cannot be accepted; perusal of the said interim order 19.11.2013 passed in W.P.56920/2013(Annexure R-3) will indicate that there was no stay/restraint order on the preliminary notification, but this Court merely restrained the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner therein; consequently, having regard to the nature of the said interim order, it cannot be said that the respondents were prevented or restrained from issuing a final declaration as contemplated under explanation 1 to Section 6(1) of the Act within the prescribed period of 1 year and accordingly, the said contention deserves to be rejected. 16. 16. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the well settled position of law that the period of 1 year prescribed under proviso(ii) to section 6(1) of the Act is mandatory, I am of the considered opinion that irrespective of the fact as to whether the impugned 6(1) final declaration was made on 25.11.2014 or 25.06.2015, the same having been made after 1 year 10 days which is well beyond the mandatory statutory period of 1 year from the date of publication of the preliminary notification published on 22.5.2013, the impugned 6(1) final declaration is vitiated and deserves to be quashed on this ground alone. 17. Having regard to my finding above, I am also of the view that all other issues that arise of consideration in this petition viz., enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, delay in passing the award beyond the prescribed period etc., pale into insignificance and the same are neither germane/material/relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the present petition and the same are not dealt with in this order. 18. In the result, I pass the following; ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned final declaration/notification said to be made on 24.11.2014 and published in the official gazette on 25.06.2015 at Annexure-B as well as the impugned preliminary notification dated 12.04.2013 at Annexure-A and the acquisition proceedings pursuant thereto, are hereby quashed insofar as the subject land of the petitioner bearing Sy.No.58/2P1 measuring about 0.22.50 acres of Permannur village, Ullala, Mangalore, D.K.District; No costs.