ORDER : This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “…..to issue an order, writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the acquisition of the lands of the petitioners, in Survey Nos.878-1B, Survey No.877-2, Survey No.879-2B and Survey No.897-2B of an extent of Acs.2.12 cents, Acs. 1.13 cents, Acs. 1.78 cents and Acs.1.06 cents, total Acs.6.12 cents of Kaligiri village, SPSR Nellore District and the purported award dated 03.08.2016, for being illegal, arbitrary, violative of the procedure enunciated under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and the right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Rules, 2014 and unconstitutional and set aside the same……” 2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that they own respective extents of the subject property. The 2nd respondent issued Section 4(1) notification dated 02.11.2009 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which was published in Surya Daily Newspaper on 12.11.2009 in R.C.G.6/4838/2009 comprising of a total extent of Ac.51-10 cents for the purpose of extension of Srikolanu Distributary and dispensed with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. Before publishing the notification in the newspaper itself, the 2nd respondent issued Section 6 declaration on 03.11.2009. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent issued notices under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Old Act. Aggrieved by the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing notices, the husband of the first petitioner filed writ petition vide W.P.No.2050 of 2011 and the petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 filed Writ Petition vide W.P.No.10357 of 2011. Initially, this Court has granted stay of all further proceedings pursuant to Section 9(3) and 10 notices of the respondents on 04.03.2011. This Court by orders dated 25.03.2015 allowed the above said writ petitions by setting aside the Section 6 declaration dated 06.10.2009 and the respondents were given liberty to proceed in the matter in accordance with law by conducting enquiry under Section 5-A Land Acquisition Act and proceed further in the acquisition proceedings. This Court by orders dated 25.03.2015 allowed the above said writ petitions by setting aside the Section 6 declaration dated 06.10.2009 and the respondents were given liberty to proceed in the matter in accordance with law by conducting enquiry under Section 5-A Land Acquisition Act and proceed further in the acquisition proceedings. It is the further case of the petitioners that, it was the specific case of the petitioners in the above writ petitions that invoking urgency clause under Section 17 is illegal as the respondents failed to take possession of the land within 3 months as prescribed under Section 17(5) (a) from the date of issuance of 4(1) notification. According to 17(5)(b) of the Act, if the Collector fails to take possession of the land within 3 months, the provisions of Section 5-A shall apply, and in all such cases the period of thirty days referred in Section 5-A shall be restored from the date of expiration of three months specified in clause (a). After disposal of the above writ petitions, the petitioners did not receive any notices from the respondents about the enquiry under Section 5-A of the old Act, though this Court has specifically directed the respondents to follow section 5-A of the old Act. There is an elaborate procedure for making declaration under Section 6 of the old Act. After thorough enquiries of the petitioners, they came to know that a notice was prepared but not issued under Section 21 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 dated 14.09.2015 of the 6th respondent, which was not served on any of the petitioners. The petitioners could secure a copy of the notice and on perusal of the same it was made to understand that the notice was issued to all the petitioners directing them to appear in person or by authorized agent on 17.10.2015 before him (6th respondent) to put a statement in writing signed by the petitioners or their authorized agents showing the nature of interest in lands, the amount of compensation for such interests, with particulars thereof, and objections, if any, to the measurements made under the old Act. There was no mention in the said notice that under which Act (old Act or new Act) they were proceeding against the petitioners. Pursuance to the application filed by the petitioner Nos. There was no mention in the said notice that under which Act (old Act or new Act) they were proceeding against the petitioners. Pursuance to the application filed by the petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 under the Right to Information Act, the 6th respondent has issued an endorsement vide R.C.A123/2016 dated 29.08.2016 along with the communication of the 5th respondent to the 6th respondent dated 05.08.2016 along with an attachment of land acquisition award made in FORM IX under the New Act. According to the above information, an award was made regarding the lands of the petitioners awarding an amount of Rs.3,14,984/-, Rs.2,60,777/-, Rs.1,65,549/-and Rs.1,55,295/-respectively, totalling to Rs.8,96,605/-. The present market value of the land is Rs.52,02,000/-and the respondents has awarded compensation of an amount of Rs.8,96,605/-only. Even though it appears from Form IX issued by the 6th respondent that compensation was being paid taking into consideration the New Act, he has determined the compensation under the old Act. The whole procedure adopted lacks transparency and not in accordance with either the old or new Act. It is the further case of the petitioners that the respondents without conducting any enquiry under Section 5A in pursuance of the orders of this Court dated 23.03.2015 and making a declaration under Section 6 of the old Act, once again preferred to issue the same notices on paper without actual service which was earlier issued under section 9(3) and Section 10 of the old Act or under Section 21 of the new Act. In the earlier round of litigation, the same procedure was followed by the respondents and the same was set aside by this Court in W.P.No.2050 of 2011. In the present case also without initiating proceedings under Section 5-A and making declaration under Section 6 of the Old Act, the 6th respondent issued notices under Section 21 of the New Act, corresponding to Section 9(3) and 10 of the old Act. Even notices under Section 21 of the New Act were not served on the petitioners and the petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 came to know of it informally and the petitioner Nos. 2 and 4 have been informed by them. Without enquiry as per Section 5-A of the Old Act and without issuing declaration under Section 6 of the Old Act, the question of issuing notices under Section 21 of the new Act does not arise. 1 and 3 came to know of it informally and the petitioner Nos. 2 and 4 have been informed by them. Without enquiry as per Section 5-A of the Old Act and without issuing declaration under Section 6 of the Old Act, the question of issuing notices under Section 21 of the new Act does not arise. Further, the 6th respondent has not given prescribed time limit for appearance of the parties. Thus, the respondents have blatantly violated the procedure prescribed under the Old Act and the New Act. It is the further case of the petitioners that declaration has to be made within a period of one year from the date of issuance of Section 4(1) notification of the old Act. But, in the present case, no declaration was made within the said time and hence the very issuance of Section 4(1) notification of the old Act has elapsed and the respondents are not entitled to proceed against the petitioners in pursuance of the section 4(1) notification dated 02.11.2009. Now the respondents are trying to dispossess the petitioners from their respective lands, which is against the procedure prescribed under the new Act. Unless this Court interferes with the action of the respondents, the petitioners will be put to irreparable loss and injury. The petitioners has no intention to stall the land acquisition proceedings, but they object to the manner in which the respondents are trying to dispossessing them, particularly regarding payment of compensation and for a value of Rs.52,02,000/-, the 6th respondent is trying to pay a meager amount of Rs.8,96,605/-which they determined under the old Act. Till date the petitioners have not been dispossessed and no compensation is paid. Having no efficacious alternative remedy, the petitioners filed this writ petition. 3. The 6th respondent filed counter affidavit denying the averments of the writ affidavit, inter alia contending that, as per the orders of this Court in W.P.No.2050 of 2011 dated 25.03.2015, which were received on 29.04.2015, the then Special Deputy Collector (LA), Somasila Project, Atmakur at Nellore has issued 5-A notices dated 08.06.2015 to the petitioners with a request to appear before the Special Deputy Collector (LA), Somasila Project, Atmakur at Nellore on 09.07.2015 for enquiry. In response thereof, the petitioners have appeared before the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Somasila Project, Atmakur at Nellore and given their written statements. In response thereof, the petitioners have appeared before the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Somasila Project, Atmakur at Nellore and given their written statements. They have never raised any objection on the acquisition of their lands. They have stated how they got title over the land and requested to pay compensation as per the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), has submitted his report on 5-A enquiry vide No.Rc.D/2798/2007 dated 08.07.2015 to the Special Collector, TGP, Nellore. The Special Collector, TGP, Nellore, vide his proceedings No.Rc.A3/167/2015, dated 14.07.2015 has accepted the report of the Special Deputy Collector (LA), disposed the 5-A enquiry procedure and requested the Special Deputy Collector (LA) to submit the draft declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Accordingly, draft declaration was submitted and the same was approved by the Special Collector TGP, Nellore vide his proceedings No.Rc/A3/167/2015 dated 15.07.2015. The same was published in Gazette bearing No.14/TGP/2015, dated 17.07.2015, in two daily news papers in Visala Andhra and Eenadu on 17.07.2015 and locally on 01.08.2015. It is further stated that an award was passed on 05.08.2016 strictly in accordance with the provisions under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in the land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Rules, 2014. The Special Collector has determined the market value of Rs.44,304/-per acre (excluding all statutory benefits) under the new Land Acquisition Act, 2013, but the basic value recorded in the office of the Sub Registrar, Vinjamur on the date of draft notification i.e. 12.11.2009 was adopted for calculation of the market value. The sale statistics were obtained three years preceding the date of publication of the draft notification and the basic value as on 12.11.2009 i.e. the date of publication of draft notification is Rs.35,000/-per acre and average sale price as per Act, 2013 is Rs.44,304/-and since the average sale price is higher than basic value, the average sale price has been determined. Thus, the procedure adopted for calculation of the market value is in accordance with law and is transparent. Thus, the procedure adopted for calculation of the market value is in accordance with law and is transparent. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the award, effective and efficacious remedy is available to them, however, they, without availing the alternative efficacious remedy, filed the writ petition and on this ground alone the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Enquiry under Section 5-A of the old Act has been conducted after issuing notices and thereafter Section 6 declaration was published and later notices under Section 21 of the Act, 2013 were sent to the petitioners by registered post on 19.09.2015 asking them to appear before the Special Officer on 17.10.2015, but they did not attend the award enquiry. Since the draft notification was published on 12.11.2009 and Draft declaration was published on 14.11.2009, there is no question of lapsation of the declaration. Subsequently, as per the directions of the Court, Form-3 notices were issued and enquiry under Section 5-A was conducted and declaration under section 6 was published in accordance with law. Hence the section 4(1) notification issued under the old Act has not lapsed. There are no valid grounds raised in the writ petition. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition., 4. The petitioner filed reply affidavit denying the averments of the counter affidavit, inter alia contending that, under Section 24(1)(a) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, where no award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is passed as on the date of Act No.30 of 2013 coming into effect, all the provisions of Act 30 of 2013 relating to determination of compensation shall apply. Under Section 26 of the Act, 2013, market value for the purposes of compensation shall be the market value on the date of Section 11 notification under Act, 2013. Since, Section 11 notification has not been issued in the instant case, the award now passed is void. In this case, compensation has been calculated basing on Section 4 notification under Land acquisition Act, 1894 and that has not been done basing on sales on the date relating to adjoining land. Thus, the whole procedure adopted is vitiated by illegality. The objections of the petitioners have not been considered at all under Section 5A enquiry as directed by this Court. Thus, the whole procedure adopted is vitiated by illegality. The objections of the petitioners have not been considered at all under Section 5A enquiry as directed by this Court. Section 6 declaration and the award dated 05.08.2016 deserve to be set aside in the face of Section 24 of Act No.30 of 2013. The award dated 05.08.2016 passed basing on the alleged land value as on 12.11.2009 is contrary to Section 24(1)(a) read with Section 26 of Act, 2013. No notices were actually received. Be that as it may, if notices under Section 21 of the Act, 2013 were issued on 19.09.2015, how can the alleged land value of 2009 be taken for calculating compensation has not been answered. Awarding compensation of Rs.8,96,605/-for a total extent of Ac.6-12 cents claiming it to be the basic value recorded by the Sub Registrar as on 12.11.2009 is wholly arbitrary, in fact, even prior that date on 17.04.2007, sale deeds for a higher amount of Rs.4,95,000/-of lands in the same area of that of the petitioners were registered and thus the compensation awarded is not even according to Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Hence prayed to allow the writ petition. 5. Heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned senior counsel, for V. Siva Prasad Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for respondent for respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and the learned Government Pleader for Irrigation for respondent Nos. 7 to 8. 6. Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned senior counsel, would submit that, despite the specific directions given by this Court while disposing of Writ petitions vide W.P.Nos.2050 of 2011 and 10357 of 2011, the respondents did not choose either to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A or make Section 6 declaration and without following the requirements under the aforementioned provisions, directly the authorities have prepared notice under Section 21 of the Act, 2013, which also was never served on the petitioners. Without complying with the formalities envisaged under Section 5-A of the Act, 1894 and without considering the objections raised by the petitioners, declaration under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 shall not be issued. Further, a perusal of the notice under Section 21 of the Act, 2013 shows that it was dated 14.09.2015. Without complying with the formalities envisaged under Section 5-A of the Act, 1894 and without considering the objections raised by the petitioners, declaration under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 shall not be issued. Further, a perusal of the notice under Section 21 of the Act, 2013 shows that it was dated 14.09.2015. Section 21 of the Act, 2013 mandates that the said notice shall be issued providing not less than thirty days and not more than 6 months for submitting objections. Thus, the notice said to have been issued to the petitioners is not in accordance with the mandate contained in that Section. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners would further submit that a farce of enquiry was conducted behind their back and an award was also passed without their participation, they secured award copy and learnt that compensation to the tune of Rs.8,96,605/-was awarded as against the present market value of the land of Rs.52,02,000/-. The market value of the land determined by the 6th respondent at Rs.44,304/-said to be the average sale price calculated as on 12.11.2009, as per the provisions of Act,2013 is totally illegal and misconceived and the lands in the same area as that of the petitioners were sold for Rs.4,95,000/-even on 17.04.2007 and thus the compensation awarded is not even according to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners would further submit that, under Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013, when no award was passed as on the date of coming into force of the Act,2013; all the provisions of Act, 2013 relating to determination of compensation shall apply and as per Section 26 of the Act, 2013, market value shall be the market value on the date of section 11 notification and since section 11 notification has not been issued, the award passed is void. Thus, the award passed is void at the face of Sections 24 and 26 of the Act, 2013. Further, the award passed determining the market value as on 12.11.2009 is contrary to Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013. Moreover, when notices were said to have been issued under Section 21 of the Act 30 of 2013, how can the 6th respondent can take the market value prevailing in 2009 to determine the compensation payable and to pass award. Further, the award passed determining the market value as on 12.11.2009 is contrary to Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013. Moreover, when notices were said to have been issued under Section 21 of the Act 30 of 2013, how can the 6th respondent can take the market value prevailing in 2009 to determine the compensation payable and to pass award. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners would further submit that, as per Section 6 of the Act, 1894, if a declaration is not made within a period of one year from the date of issuance of notification, the very issuance of Section 4(1) notification shall lapse. Further, where declaration under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 is quashed by Court, fresh declaration must be issued within the same limitation period prescribed under the first proviso of Section 6(1). In the instant case, notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894 was published in locality on 12.11.2009. The initial publication under Section 6 of 1894 Act was published in the locality on 14.11.2009. However, the said declaration was set aside by this Court vide orders dated 25.03.2015 passed in W.P.Nos.10357 of 2011 and 2050 of 2011. However, the fresh declaration was published in the locality on 01.08.2015, which is beyond the period of one year stipulated under Section 6 of the Act, 1894. Hence, the 4(1) notification of the Act, 1894 has elapsed and hence the declaration is invalid and pursuantly the award made pursuant to the lapsed notification and invalid declaration is void. Hence, prayed to allow the writ petition. In support of his contentions, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on Padma Sundara Rao (Dead) and others v. State of T.N. and others, (2002) 3 Supreme Court Cases 533 , Ashok Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana and another, (2007) 3 Supreme Court Cases 470 , Anil Kumar Gupta vs. State of Bihar and others, (2012)12 Supreme Court Cases 443 , Gojer Brothers Private Limited and another vs. State of West Bengal and others, (2013) 16 Supreme Court Cases 660, K. Varalakshmi and others vs. Government of A.P.rep. By the District Collector, Chittoor and another, 2016(5) ALT 690 (S.B.). 7. By the District Collector, Chittoor and another, 2016(5) ALT 690 (S.B.). 7. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition would submit that, pursuant to the directions of this Court vide orders dated 25.03.2015 passed in W.P.Nos.2050 of 2011 and 10357 of 2011, copies of which were received on 29.04.2015, 5-A notices dated 08.06.2015 were issued to the petitioners to attend enquiry and accordingly the petitioners appeared and submitted their written statements stating as to how they could get title to the property and requested to pay compensation under Act,2013. 5-A report was submitted to the Special Collector, who had accepted the report and requested to submit draft declaration. Accordingly, draft declaration was submitted and the same was approved and published on 17.07.2015 as per the procedure in Gazette, two newspapers and the same was also published in the locality on 01.08.2015. Therefore, the declaration was published within the time stipulated under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 and thus Section 4(1) notification would not lapse. The learned Government Pleader would further submit that, notices under Section 21 of the Act, 2013 were sent to the petitioners through registered post, but they did not attend for award enquiry. Taking into consideration the sale statistics three years preceding the date of publication of draft notification, the average sale price calculated as per the Act, 2013 of Rs.44,304/-, which is higher than the basic value of Rs.35,000/-, award was passed as per Act,2013 adding solatium, additional market value and other allowances. There is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity in passing the award and the same was passed duly taking into consideration the procedure stipulated as per the Act,2013. There are no valid grounds in the writ petition and hence prayed to dismiss the writ petition. In support of the contentions that as per Section 24 of 2013 Act, the acquisition proceedings would not lapse and that the period of operation stay has to be excluded from reckoning the period under Section 6 of the Act, the learned Government Pleader has relied on Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal And Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129 . 8. In reply the learned senior counsel would submit that even by the date of filing of the earlier writ petitions vide W.P.Nos.2050 of 2011 and 10357 of 2011 itself, the period of one year has already lapsed. 9. 8. In reply the learned senior counsel would submit that even by the date of filing of the earlier writ petitions vide W.P.Nos.2050 of 2011 and 10357 of 2011 itself, the period of one year has already lapsed. 9. Perusal of the material available on record would indicate that, pursuant to the requisition of the Executive Engineer, S.P.Division No.-IV, Atmakur for acquisition of land in Sy.Nos.370-1B1B in Kaligiri village of Kaligiri Mandal for excavation of Srikolanu Distributory of G.K.N.Canal under Somasila Project, a total extent of Ac.51-10 cents including the lands of the petitioners in an extent of Ac.6-12 cents were sought to be acquired. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent issued Section 4(1) notification dated 02.11.2009 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the same was published in Surya Daily Newspaper on 12.11.2009 and the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act,1894 was dispensed with. Even before issuance of 4(1) notification, the 2nd respondent issued Section 6 declaration on 03.11.2009. When the 3rd respondent issued notices under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act, 1894, the husband of 1st petitioner filed Writ Petition vide W.P.No.2050 of 2011, whereas the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 filed another writ petition vide W.P.No.10357 of 2011. 10. This Court vide its orders dated 04.02.2011 in WPMP No.2521 of 2011 in W.P.No.2050 of 2011, which was extracted in the counter, granted interim stay of all proceedings pursuant to Section 9(3) and 10 notices of the respondents to the following effect: “The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short the Act) was published on 03.11.2009. The purpose of acquisition is to extend the Gottipati Kondapa Naidu Irrigation Canal. The urgency clause under Section 17 of the Act was invoked and enquiry under Section 5 of the Act was dispensed with. However, possession is not taken till today. If possession is not taken within three months from the date of publication of notification under Section 3(1) of the Act, it would be obligatory on the part of the Collector to conduct enquiry under Section 5(A) of the Act. Admittedly, no such enquiry was conducted. It makes no difference whether the award is passed or not, when such blatant illegality has taken place. There shall be interim direction as prayed for.” 11. Similarly vide orders dated 18.04.2011 passed in WPMP No.12747 of 2011 in W.P.No.10357 of 2011 filed by the petitioner Nos. Admittedly, no such enquiry was conducted. It makes no difference whether the award is passed or not, when such blatant illegality has taken place. There shall be interim direction as prayed for.” 11. Similarly vide orders dated 18.04.2011 passed in WPMP No.12747 of 2011 in W.P.No.10357 of 2011 filed by the petitioner Nos. 2 to 4, which was extracted in the counter, this Court granted interim direction as prayed for. 12. Both the above writ petitions were disposed of on 25.03.2015 and the operative portion reads as follows: “At request of learned Govt. Pleader, the writ petition was adjourned to this day to enable him to get instructions as to whether possession of acquired land in Sy.Nos.879/2B, 897/2B,871/2 and 845/1B of Kaligiri village and Kaligiri Mandal, SPSR Nellore District was taken or not. The learned Govt. Pleader, on instructions submits that the urgency clause was invoked and possession of the lands could not be taken for want of budget provision to pay compensation to land owners. In view of this admitted position, the learned Govt. pleader submits that the legal objection raised by the petitioners is covered by the above decisions. The Writ Petition is accordingly ordered Section 6 declaration dated 06.10.2009 is set aside and the respondents are given liberty to proceed in the matter in accordance with law by conducting enquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act and proceed further in the acquisition proceedings. There shall be no order as to costs.” 13. By virtue of the above orders, the Section 6 declaration dated 06.10.2019 was set aside and a liberty was given to the respondents to proceed in the matter after conducting enquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 14. There is dispute between the parties regarding adherence to the procedure contemplated under Section 5A of the Act, 1894. According to the petitioners, no notices were issued to them asking them to attend for enquiry, but the same has been stiffly refuted by the respondents stating that 5-A notices dated 08.06.2015 have been issued to the petitioners and accordingly the petitioners have attended the enquiry on 09.07.2015. 15. Be that as it may, the main flank of argument of the petitioners is that section 4(1) notification stood lapsed for non issuance of declaration within one year from the said notification. 16. 15. Be that as it may, the main flank of argument of the petitioners is that section 4(1) notification stood lapsed for non issuance of declaration within one year from the said notification. 16. To answer this, Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is germane. Section 6(1) of the Act so far as relevant reads as follows: “6. Declaration that land is required for a public purpose.-(1) Subject to the provisions of Part VII of this Act, when the appropriate government is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made under Section 5-A 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 by the same notification under Section 4 sub-section (1), irrespective of whether one report or different reports has or have been made (wherever required) under Section 5-A 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, but before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1894, 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, 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 the public revenues or some fund controlled or managed by a local authority. Explanation.-In computing any of the periods referred to in the first proviso, the period during which any action or proceedings to be taken in pursuant of the notification issued under Section 4 sub-section (1), is stayed by an order of a court shall be excluded.” 17. Explanation.-In computing any of the periods referred to in the first proviso, the period during which any action or proceedings to be taken in pursuant of the notification issued under Section 4 sub-section (1), is stayed by an order of a court shall be excluded.” 17. In terms of clause (ii) of the proviso to Section 6(1), no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification issued under Section 4(1), which is published after 24.09.1984 can be made after expiry of one year from the date of publication of the notification. To put it differently, a declaration is required to be made under Section 6(1) within one year from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1). 18. The Explanation to Section 6(1) permits exclusion of the period during which the court had stayed the acquisition proceedings for the purpose of reckoning the period of one year prescribed for making declaration. That period shall have to be added to the period of one year prescribed for making the declaration in the light of the Explanation to Section 6. 19. The factual matrix of this case shows that, Section 4(1) notification was published in the locality on 12.11.2009. Thus, Section 6 declaration shall be made on or before 11.11.2010. In the light of Explanation to Section 6, the period during which the Court had stayed the acquisition proceedings shall be added to the period of one year. In the case on hand, interim order of stay was granted by this Court on 04.02.2011 which order was finally vacated on 25.03.2015. This means that the restraint order was in force for a period of four (04) years one (01) month and twenty one (21) days. In view of Explanation to Section 6 (1), this period shall have to be added to the period of one year prescribed for making the award. By such addition, the declaration has to be passed on or before 02.01.2015. Whereas, the declaration in the present case was published on 17.07.2015 in the Gazette and newspapers and was published in locality on 01.08.2015. Thus, even if the period of operation of the restrain order is added to the time allowed for making the declaration, the declaration stands beyond the period prescribed. 20. Whereas, the declaration in the present case was published on 17.07.2015 in the Gazette and newspapers and was published in locality on 01.08.2015. Thus, even if the period of operation of the restrain order is added to the time allowed for making the declaration, the declaration stands beyond the period prescribed. 20. In Padma Sundara Rao (dead) and others (supra) relied on by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the question whether after quashing of notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 fresh period of one year is available to the State Government to issue another notification under Section 6, held thus: “16. …..If the legislature intended to give a new lease of life in those cases where the declaration under Section 6 is quashed, there is no reason why it could not have done so by specifically providing for it. The fact that the legislature specifically provided for periods covered by orders of stay or injunction clearly shows that no other period was intended to be excluded and that there is no scope for providing any other period of limitation…..” 21. In Ashok Kumar and others (supra), relied on by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “14……. On a plain reading of the aforementioned provisions, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the period which is required to be excluded would be one, during which the action or proceeding taken was subjected to any order of stay passed by a competent court of law. 15. provisions of the Act should be construed having regard to the purport and intent thereof. Section 6 of the Act is beneficent to the landowners. 16. In Hindustan Petroleum Corpn.Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai ( (2005) 7 SCC 627 ) it was held: “29. The Act is an expropriatory legislation. This Court in State of M.P. v. Vishnu Prasad Sharma ( AIR 1966 SC 1593 ) observed that in such a case the provisions of the statute should be strictly construed as it deprives person of his land without consent. (See also Khun Chand v. State of Rajasthan ( AIR 1967 SC 1074 ) and CCE v. Orient Fabrics (P) Ltd ( (2004)1 SCC 597 )” 17. (See also Khun Chand v. State of Rajasthan ( AIR 1967 SC 1074 ) and CCE v. Orient Fabrics (P) Ltd ( (2004)1 SCC 597 )” 17. We have noticed hereinbefore that the proviso appended to subsection (1) of Section 6 is in the negative term. It is, therefore, mandatory in nature. Any declaration made after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 would be void and of no effect. An enabling provision has been made by reason of the explanation appended thereto, but the same was done only for the purpose of extending the period of limitation and not for any other purpose. The purport and object of the provisions of the Act and in particular the proviso which had been inserted by Act 68 of 1984 and which came into force w.e.f. 24.09.1984 must be given its full effect. The said provision was inserted for the benefit of the owners of land. Such a statutory benefit, thus cannot be taken away by a purported construction of an order of a court which, in our opinion, is absolutely clear and explicit.” 22. In Anil Kumar Gupta (supra) relied on by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, the Hon’ble Supreme Court have dealt with the question as to whether the declaration issued under Section 6(1) was a nullity because the same was issued after expiry of the period of one year specified in clause (ii) of first proviso of that section, and held thus: “18. ……..This issue is no longer res integra and must be treated as settled by the judgments of this Court in Padma Sundara Rao v. State of T.N.( (2002) 3 SCC 533 , Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana ( (2007) 3 SCC 470 and a recent judgment in Devender Kumar Tyagi v. State of U.P.( (2011) 9 SCC 164 . In Padma Sundara Rao case the Constitution Bench unequivocally held that the second proviso to Section 6(1) is mandatory and a declaration issued beyond the period of one year from the last publication of the notification issued under Section 4(1) is nullity. …..” 23. In view of the proposition laid in the above decisions, it is evident that the declaration issued beyond the period of one year from the last publication of the notification issued under Section 4(1) is a nullity. …..” 23. In view of the proposition laid in the above decisions, it is evident that the declaration issued beyond the period of one year from the last publication of the notification issued under Section 4(1) is a nullity. 24. In the instant case, as referred to above, the declaration, having not been issued within a period of one year from the date of last publication of the notification, is a nullity and the same is non-est. 25. The other citations relied on by the petitioner also lay down the same proposition of law. Hence, they are not referred to herein, since serve no purpose. 26. In view of the observations made above, this Court feels it unnecessary to deal with the objections raised by the petitioners regarding non compliance of the procedure contemplated under Section 5-A of the Act, 1894 and also non-adherence of the procedure contemplated under the Act, 2013 regarding quantification of the compensation. Once the declaration itself is nullified, any findings given on the above contentions yield no result. 27. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed. Section 6 declaration is declared as a nullity and non est. Resultantly, the entire proceedings of the acquisition concerning the petitioners’ lands is declared to have been lapsed. Needless to say, the authorities are at liberty to issue fresh notification for acquisition of the land, if they are desirous of acquiring the subject property. There shall be no order as to costs. As sequel thereto, miscellaneous petition, if any, pending shall stand closed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated.