ORDER

Though the respondents have been served, no one is appearing either in person or through counsel.

Leave granted.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.

The controversy raised in this case is covered by the judgment of this Court in N. Narasimhaiah v. State of Karnataka1. The admitted facts are that notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on August 26, 1982 and enquiry under Section 5-A was conducted thereafter. But before the receipt of the report from the Land Acquisition Officer, the declaration under Section 6 was published on June 24, 1985 within three years. Two writ petitions were filed on December 10, 1985 challenging the notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section 6. The High Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 by the impugned judgment dated February 26, 1991 made in Writ Petition Nos.19348 of 1985. Thus, these appeals by special leave.

3. It is seen that the declaration under Section 6 was published within three years from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) as upheld by the High Court. But the High Court note