THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.12343 of 2002 13.02.2008 Between: C.Bhaskar and others … Petitioners AND The District Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.12343 of 2002 ORDER: The three petitioners are owners of land in survey Nos.225/18, 191/2A and 236/1B. They own small extents of Acs.0.08, 0.12 and 0.15 respectively in Kasiralla village of Yadamari Mandal in Chittoor District. The lands of petitioners along with other extents of lands was sought to be acquired under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act, for brevity) for providing road to Perumalla Penta from Kasiralla main road. The notification under Section 4(1) of LA Act was issued and published in Chittoor District Gazette on 10.06.1998 and the same was published in two local newspapers on 11.06.1998. The first respondent issued and published declaration under Section 6 of LA Act on 05.05.2002, which is assailed in writ petition as illegal and contrary to the provisions of Section 6 of LA Act. Third respondent filed counter affidavit opposing writ petition. The dates of publication of notification and declaration under Section 4(1) and 6 of LA Act respectively is not disputed nor denied. It is however stated that as enquiry under Section 5-A of LA Act was not dispensed with, conducting of such enquiry in respect of lands took time and after completing this exercise, the declaration was published on 05.05.2002. It is also alleged that petitioner also participated in award enquiry. This Court has heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, who reiterated their contentions as disclosed in pleadings. There cannot be any doubt with regard to the legal position that a declaration shall have to be published within a period of one year from the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in local newspapers. Indeed, the law prohibits publication after expiry of one year from the date of publication of notification under Section 6(1) proviso (ii) of LA Act. The only exception to rule is when further proceedings pursuant to Section 4(1) of LA Act are stayed by Court. It is nobody’s case that such an eventuality exists in this case. Therefore, declaration impugned cannot be sustained as illegal. Even if petitioners participated in Award enquiry as alleged, it does not have any bearing as declaration under Section 6 of LA Act is illegal, any further enquiry pursuant thereto would also be rendered illegal. The writ petition has therefore to be allowed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and impugned declaration, dated 05.05.2002 under Section 6 of LA Act is quashed. After lapse of two years, award cannot be passed, and therefore, respondents cannot give effect to notification under Section 4(1) of LA Act as well. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 13.02.2008 pln