JUDGMENT : C. Jayachandran, J. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to Ext.P5 notification issued by the 2 nd respondent, in cancellation of Ext.P4 notification. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 and 8; learned Standing Counsel for respondents 5 to 7 and 10; learned Standing Counsel for the 9 th respondent; and also, learned counsels for additional respondents 11 to 15. 3. The main, if not the solitary point, argued by the learned counsel for petitioners is one based on Section 14 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, 2013 Act'). Section 14 is extracted here below: “ 14. Lapse of Social Impact Assessment Report Where a preliminary notification under section 11 is not issued within twelve months from the date of appraisal of the Social Impact Assessment report submitted by the Expert Group under section 7, then, such report shall be deemed to have lapsed and a fresh Social Impact Assessment shall be required to be undertaken prior to acquisition proceedings under section 11: PROVIDED that the appropriate Government, shall have the power to extend the period of twelve months, if in its opinion circumstances exist justifying the same: PROVIDED FURTHER that any such decision to extend the period shall be recorded in writing and the same shall be notified and be uploaded on the website of the authority concerned.” 4. Learned counsel would submit that the appraisal of the Social Impact Assessment Report submitted by the expert group took place in the instant case on 09.11.2020, as is decipherable from Ext.R8(b) document produced along with the counter filed by the 8 th respondent. The period stipulated in Section 14 is twelve months. Acting upon the proviso, the period was extended thrice and ultimately Ext.P4 notification was issued on 09.11.2023. Even if it is assumed that Ext.P4 notification is in accord with Section 14 , giving due credence to the proviso therein, Ext.P5 is a fresh notification issued in cancellation of Ext.P4 and the same is dated 22.03.2025, well beyond the time limit stipulated in Section 14 of the 2013 Act. According to the learned counsel, the acquisition contemplated in Ext.P5 cannot be proceeded with, except after securing a fresh Social Impact Assessment Report as envisaged in Sections 4 and 7 of the 2013 Act. According to the learned counsel, the acquisition contemplated in Ext.P5 cannot be proceeded with, except after securing a fresh Social Impact Assessment Report as envisaged in Sections 4 and 7 of the 2013 Act. 5. Learned Government Pleader would submit that, inasmuch as Ext.P4 is within the time stipulated in Section 14 , especially in view of the proviso therein, Ext.P5 is liable to be viewed as one in continuation of Ext.P4, wherefore, there is no violation of Section 14 of the Act. Learned Government Pleader would also require this Court to look at the Social Impact Assessment Report, which will not undergo any change on account of the time consumed in issuing Ext.P5 notification. The last point canvassed by the learned Government Pleader is that the petitioners will have an opportunity under Section 15 of the 2013 Act, in case they have any grievance with respect to the Social Impact Assessment Report, which stage is yet to come. 6. Learned Standing Counsel for the 9 th respondent argued in tune with the contentions in the counter affidavit, which are not germane for consideration, in view of the specific legal issue argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned Standing Counsel for respondents 5, 6, 7 and 10 would adopt the arguments advanced by the learned Government Pleader. 7. Learned counsels for additional respondents 11 to 15 would argue in support of the petitioners' contention. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, this Court finds considerable merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Reference has already been made to Section 14 of the 2013 Act. This Court finds a purpose in the stipulations contained in Section 14 , which mandates that the notification under Section 11 has to be issued within a period of 12 months from the date of appraisal of the Social Impact Assessment Report submitted by the expert group. If the same is not done, the Social Impact Assessment Report shall be deemed to have lapsed and a fresh Social Impact Assessment is required to be undertaken, prior to the acquisition proceedings under Section 11. The obvious purpose appears to be that there should be proximity of time between the appraisal of the Social Impact Assessment and the issuance of notification. The obvious purpose appears to be that there should be proximity of time between the appraisal of the Social Impact Assessment and the issuance of notification. In other words, a Social Impact Assessment study conducted in the context of a particular project, may undergo some change in the parameters due to efflux of time, if there is considerable distance of time between such appraisal and the issuance of notification. In the instant case, this Court notice that Ext.P5 notification is issued on 22.03.2025; whereas the appraisal of the Social Impact Assessment Report was done on 09.11.2020. There is a gap of almost five years, whereas the stipulated time, going by Section 14 , is twelve months. As per the proviso to Section 14 , the period of twelve months can be extended for reasons to be recorded in writing. In respect of an appraisal made on 09.11.2020, Ext.P4 notification was issued on 09.11.2023 harping on the proviso. Even if it is deemed to be within the limits of this law, the said notification has been cancelled by virtue of Ext.P5; and a fresh notification in the form of Ext.P5 is seen issued on 22.03.2025, well beyond the period stipulated in Section 14 . This Court further notice that Ext.P5 notification is not supported by any extension of time in terms of the proviso to Section 14 by the appropriate Government. If that be so, the acquisition contemplated in Ext.P5 notification cannot proceed, except with a fresh Social Impact Assessment Study and Report, as envisaged in Section 7 by the expert group. 9. The argument of the learned Government Pleader that Ext.P5 is a continuation of Ext.P4, cannot be appreciated. Had it been a case of an amendment or modification of Ext.P4 by virtue of Ext.P5, that argument could have been countenanced. Here is a case, where Ext.P4 stands cancelled fully and completely and Ext.P5 notification is seen issued. Therefore, the said argument will stand repelled. The second contention is that a fresh Social Impact Assessment Study is not necessitated on account of the fact that there is no change in circumstances. Here is a case, where Ext.P4 stands cancelled fully and completely and Ext.P5 notification is seen issued. Therefore, the said argument will stand repelled. The second contention is that a fresh Social Impact Assessment Study is not necessitated on account of the fact that there is no change in circumstances. An enquiry on the question whether the present Environmental Impact Assessment Study is sufficient or not is impermissible for the reason that Section 14 mandates a fresh report on the expiry of the time stipulated in that Section, dehors and independent of the fact, whether the existing study would serve the purpose or not. That being so, the second contention will also stand dismissed. The third contention is with respect to the opportunity available to the petitioner under Section 15 of the 2013 Act. The same is permissible only on three specified grounds, of which, the third one is with respect to the findings of the Social Impact Assessment Report. This pre-supposes the existence of a Social Impact Assessment Report, in accordance with law. In the instant facts, we do not have such a report, since the existing Social Impact Assessment Report has lapsed in terms of Section 14 of the 2013 Act. Therefore, all the three contentions of the learned Government Pleader will stand dismissed. Learned Government Pleader would make a final submission - in tune with the third prayer sought for in the Writ Petition - which is to permit the 1 st respondent to continue with the acquisition proceedings on the strength of Ext.P4 notification, provided the same is permissible in law. The 1 st respondent will be at liberty to do so, of course, subject to its permissibility in accordance with law. 10. In the circumstances, Ext.P5 notification cannot survive the test of law, inasmuch as it is not based on a Social Impact Assessment Report. Ext.P5 is therefore set aside. The authority will proceed with the proposed acquisition, after conducting a fresh Social Impact Assessment Study and a report thereof, followed by an appraisal and issuance of Section 11 notification within the time stipulated in Section 14 . This Writ Petition is allowed as indicated above.