Summarize the following court judgment. Civil Appeal No. 1274 of 1988. From the Judgment and order dated 7.10.1986 of the Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 1143 of 1985. Masodkar and A.K. Gupta for the Appellant. V.S. Desai and A.S. Bhasme for the Respondents The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATHAN	 J. 1. We grant special leave and proceed to dispose of the appeal after hearing both counsel 2. The point raised in the appeal is a very short one. The lands	 belonging to the petitioners were among those sought to be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act	 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act ') by means of a notification under Section 4 issued on 22nd June	 1982. This was followed up by a declaration under Section 6 dated 15th March	 1983. The petitioners challenged both the notification and the 443 declaration in writ petition No 947 of 1983 before the High Court The notification under Section 4 was challenged on the ground of mala fides and the declaration under Section 6 on the short ground that the petitioners ' objections had not been heard before the making of the declaration. When this writ petition came up for hearing	 a statement was made on behalf of the Government that the notification under Section 6 was being withdrawn. On this statement being made	 the writ petition was withdrawn and disposed of accordingly. Thereafter the petitioners were heard under Section 5 A of the Act and a fresh declaration under Section 6 was issued on 4th April	 1985. The petitioners again filed a writ petition in the High Court	 being writ petition No. 1143 of 1985	 the judgment in which forms the subject matter of the present appeal. In this writ petition they again challenged the notification under Section 4 as vitiated by mala fides and non application of mind. The High Court has found no merit in this contention and rejected the same. We see no reason to interfere with this conclusion of the High Court. However	 another question was also raised by the petitioners	 namely	 that the withdrawal of the earlier declaration dated 15.3.1983 had the automatic effect of also rendering the notification under Section 4 dated 22.6.1982 ineffective and infructuous. On the strength of the decision of this Court in State vs Vishnu Prasad Sharma	 ; 	 it was contended that	 once a declaration under section 6 was issued	 the notification under Section 4 exhausted itself. It made no difference	 it was said	 that the notification issued under section 6 had been withdrawn. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Ajit Singh vs State	 AIR 1972 Bombay 177 in support of this proposition. This contention	 however	 was rejected by the High Court and hence the present appeal. We are of opinion that the decision of the High Court is correct and should be upheld. The Bench has rightly pointed out that Ajit Singh 's case (supra) had failed to take note of the decisions of this Court in Girdhari Lal Amrit Lal vs State	 ; State vs Haider Bux	 ; and State vs Bhogilal Keshavlal	 ; and therefore	 does not represent the correct law. In Vishnu Prasad Sharma 's case (supra) the question for consideration of this Court was whether there could be successive declarations in respect of various parcels of land covered by a notification under Section 4(1). Considering the scheme of the Act as it then stood	 444 the Court held that the Act envisaged a single declaration under Section 6 in respect of a notification under Section 4 and that	 when once a declaration under Section 6 particularising the area in the locality specified in the notification under Section 4(1) is issued	 the remaining non particularised area stands automatically released. The Court also referred to the provisions of Section 48 of the Act in this context. The following observations appear in the judgment of Sarkar J. ". . It seems to me that if the correct interpretation is that only one declaration can be made under section 6	 that also would exhaust the notification under section 4; that notification would no longer remain in force to justify successive declarations under section 6 in respect of different areas included in it. There is nothing in the Act to support the view that it is only a withdrawal under section 48 that puts a notification under section 4 completely out of the way. The effect of section 48 is to withdraw the acquisition proceedings. including the notification under section 4 with which it started We are concerned not with a withdrawal but with the force of a notification under section 4 having become exhausted " 7. The High Court was correct in pointing out that the above observations were made in the context of a valid declaration under S 6 The Court held that once there is a valid declaration under section 6	 the scope of the notification under S 4 will got exhausted This principle cannot clearly apply to a case where the declaration under S 6 proves to be invalid. ineffective or infructuous for some reason. It has been so held by this Court in a number of decisions. In Girdhari Lal Amrir Lal 's case (supra) which was decided about a week earlier to Vishnu Prasad Sharma 's case	 this Court held that. where a notification under section 6 is invalid	 the Government may treat it as ineffective and issue in its place a fresh notification under S 6 and that there is nothing in S 48 of the Act to preclude the Government from doing so This view has been repeated in State vs Haider Bux	 ; and State vs Bhogilal Keshavlal	 ; These decisions have clearly pointed out the distinction between a case where there is an effective declaration under section 6 (which precludes the issue of further declarations in respect of other parts of the land covered by the notification under section 4 not covered by the declaration issued under S 6) and a case where? for some reason	 the declaration under S 6 is invalid. It is true that in the present case there was no occasion for the High Court in the earlier writ petition to pronounce the declaration 445 dated 15.3.1983 to be invalid. But the validity of the declaration had been challenged on the ground that the petitioners had not been heard under section 5A	 an irregularity	 which ex facie rendered the declaration invalid. The State Government obviously acknowledged this and withdrew the declaration on its own instead of obtaining a judgment to that effect from the Court. In principle	 there is no distinction between a case where a declaration under section 6 is declared invalid by the Court and a case in which the Government itself withdraws the declaration under section 6 when some obvious illegality is pointed out. The point in issue in this appeal is thus directly governed by the three earlier decisions of this Court and the High Court was fully justified in dismissing the writ petition on this ground. Before concluding we must refer to one circumstance which was brought to our notice by learned counsel for the petitioners and which has also been noticed in the judgment of the High Court. It appears that	 between the date of withdrawal of the earlier writ petition (namely	 23rd August	 1983) and the issue of the second declaration under section 6 (namely	 4.4.1985)	 the Government had issued a fresh notification under section 4 for the acquisition of certain lands. The lands in the two notifications under section 4 do not completely overlap but it appears that some fields are common in both. No declaration under section 6 appears to have been issued in furtherance of the second notification under section 4 when the High Court heard the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that	 at least in respect of such of the lands comprised in the section 4 notification dated 22.6.1982 as are also covered by the subsequent notification under section 4	 it is legitimate to infer that the State Government has superseded the earlier notification by the latter one. This contention is clearly well founded. We would	 therefore	 like to make it clear that in respect of the lands covered by the first notification under section 4 which are also covered by or comprised in	 the second notification under section 4	 further proceedings regarding acquisition should be taken	 in accordance with law	 only in pursuance of the latter notification and the proceedings initiated in respect of such lands by the first notification dated 22.6.1982 should be deemed to have been superseded. With the above clarification	 we affirm the order of the High Court had dismiss this appeal. In the circumstances	 however	 we make no order to costs. G.N. Appeal dismissed.

% The appellants ' lands were among those sought to be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act	 1894 by means of a notification under section 4	 followed by a declaration under section 6. The Notification and the declaration were challenged by way of a Writ Petition on the short ground that the appellants had not been heard before making the declaration. When the Writ Petition was heard	 a statement on behalf of the Government was made	 to the effect that the notification under section 6 was being withdrawn. On the basis of this statement the Writ Petition was disposed of as withdrawn. Thereafter the appellants were heard under section 5A and a fresh declaration under section 6 was issued. The appellants filed a Writ Petition and again challenged the Notification under section 4 as vitiated by mala fides and non application of mind. The High Court rejected the same. Another question raised before the High Court was that the withdrawal of the earlier declaration had the automatic effect of rendering the Notification under section 4 ineffective and infructuous. The High Court rejected that contention as well. Hence this appeal by special leave. Dismissing the appeal	 this Court	 ^ HELD: 1. Once there is a valid declaration under section 6	 the scope of the notification under section 4 will get exhausted. This principle cannot clearly apply to a case where the declaration under section 6 proves to be invalid	 ineffective or infructuous for some reason. There is no distinction between a case where a declaration under section 6 is declared invalid by the Court and a case in which the Government itself withdraws the declaration under section 6 when some obvious illegality is pointed out. [444E	 445B] 442 Girdhari Lal Amrit Lal vs State	 ; ; State vs Haider Bux	 ; and State vs Bhogilal Keshavlal	 ; followed. State vs Vishnu Prasad Sharma	 ; distinguished. Ajit Singh vs State	 AIR 1972 Bombay 177 disapproved. Between the date of withdrawal of the earlier Writ Petition and the issue of the second declaration under section 6	 the Government had issued a fresh Notification under section 4 for the acquisition of certain lands. The lands in the two Notifications under section 4 do not completely overlap	 but some fields are common in both. No declaration under section 6 had been issued in furtherance of the second notification under section 4 when the High Court heard the matter. In respect of the lands covered by the first notification under section 4 which are also covered by or comprised in the second notification under section 4	 further proceedings regarding acquisition shall be taken in accordance with law only in pursuance of the latter notification and the proceedings initiated by the first notification should be deemed to have been superseded. [445C F]