JUDGMENT : 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs : "a. Issue writ of certiorari quashing 4(1) notification published in official gazette dated 06.02.2014 vide Annexure-A; b. Issue writ of certiorari quashing 6(1) notification published in official gazette dated 09.04.2015 vide Annexure-T; ba. Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the award dated 10.04.2017 passed by the 2nd respondent at Annexure-W; c. Issue such other writ or direction as this Hon' ble Court deems fit to serve the ends of justice and equity. d. Award costs of this writ petition." 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and learned counsel for respondent No.4. Perused the material on record. 3. The material on record indicates that the petitioners claim to be the owners of the subject land which was notified for acquisition by the respondents vide preliminary notification dated 06.02.2014 published in the official gazette pursuant to which the respondents also issued the final notification dated 09.04.2015 which was also published in the official gazette which was followed by the impugned award dated 10.04.2017. In addition to the other contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners, it is their specific contention that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'the said Act of 2013') came into force with effect from 01.01.2014 and Section 114 of the said Act of 2013 expressly repealed the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the said Act of 1894'). It is contended that upon coming into force of the said Act of 2013, the respondents were not entitled or authorized to take steps to acquire the subject lands under the said Act of 1894 which had been expressly repealed and all acquisition proceedings initiated after 01.01.2014 would have to be done only under the said Act of 2013 and not by the repealed Act of 1894. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the impugned preliminary notification published on 06.02.2014 and the final notification dated 09.04.2015 followed by the impugned award dated 10.04.2017 in order to contend that the impugned notifications and award which are purported to have been issued under the Repealed Act of 2013 were without jurisdiction or authority of law and that the same deserve to be quashed. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that though the preliminary notification is said to have been dated 31.12.2013 prior to 01.01.2014 when the said Act of 2013 came into force, the preliminary notification took effect only on 06.02.2014 when it was published in the official gazette as can be seen from the said notification and consequently after 01.01.2014, it was not open for the respondents to issue a preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act of 1894 which had been expressly repealed by the said Act of 2013 in the light of the express language employed in Section 4(1) of the said Act of 1894. In this context, reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Urban Improvement Trust, Udaypur Vs. Bheru Lal and others (2002) 2 KLJ 201. 5. Per contra, in addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the statement of objections, learned HCGP submits that a perusal of the preliminary notification will indicate that the same was issued on 31.12.2013 prior to the coming into force of the said Act of 2013 with effect from 01.01.2014 and consequently by virtue of Section 114(2) of the said Act of 2013 r/w Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the acquisition proceedings pursuant to the preliminary notification dated 31.12.2013 were perfectly valid and legal and the present writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 6. 6. While considering the scope and ambit of Sec.4 and 6 of the said Act of 1894, the apex Court in the aforesaid case of Urban Improvement Trust supra, has held that a publication of the notification made or prepared by the State Government under Section 4(1) would be of no effect till it is published in the official gazette and the said part of Section 4 is mandatory and a condition precedent for initiation of land acquisition proceedings; in other words, for the purpose of initiation of legally valid land acquisition proceedings under Section 4 of the said Act of 1894, it is absolutely essential that there exists a valid and effective preliminary notification which is published in the official gazette as specifically mandated in Section 4(1) of the said Act of 1894 and in the absence of a valid gazette notification, the said preliminary notification is no notification at all in the eye of law and all acquisition proceedings pursuant to the said invalid notification are non-est, invalid and void-ab-initio and not recognized by law. In the instant case, though the preliminary notification is said to be dated 31.12.2013 before the said Act of 2013 came into force with effect from 01.01.2014, in the face of the undisputed fact that the preliminary notification was published in the official gazette only on 06.02.2014 after the said Act came into force on 01.01.2014, there was no valid, legal or effective preliminary notification prior to 01.01.2014 and consequently the impugned preliminary notification dated 06.02.2014 purported to have been issued u/ S 4 of the said Act of 1894 after coming into force of the said Act of 2013 is clearly illegal, invalid, inoperative, ineffective, non-est and void-ab-initio and all proceedings pursuant to the same deserve to be quashed. It is also relevant to state that in view of the fact that the preliminary notification is dated 06.02.2014 on which date it was published in the official gazette, the contention of the learned HCGP that the preliminary notification was issued on 31.12.2013 under the said Act of 1894 and was consequently saved by virtue of Sec. 114(2) of the said Act of 2013 r/w Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, cannot be accepted. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the entire acquisition proceedings purported to have been initiated on 06.02.2014 under the said Repealed Act of 1894 are clearly illegal and without jurisdiction and authority of law and the same deserve to be quashed. 7. In the result, I pass the following : ORDER i. The petition is allowed. ii. Impugned notifications at Annexures-A dated 06.02.2014 and Annexure-T dated 09.04.2015 and the impugned award at Annexure-W dated 10.04.2017 and all acquisition proceedings pursuant thereto in respect of the subject lands of the petitioners are hereby quashed. iii. Liberty is reserved in favour of the respondents to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings under the provision of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.