JUDGMENT

Mrs. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J. :- Leave granted.

2. The appeal pertains to land admeasuring 1 ground and 1602 sq. ft. in T. S. No. 3/1 part, Block No. 31, Mambalam Village, Madras owned by the appellants society. By a Notification dated 24-8-1982 issued by the respondent-Government under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, a portion of the said land was notified as required for a road and water drainage arrangements. The Notification was published in Tamil Nadu Gazette dated 8-9-1982. Thereafter the respondent Government issued a declaration dated 19-12-1983 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act acquiring the said land for the public purpose of providing a road, drainage and water facilities. The Notification was published in Tamil Nadu Gazette dated 15th of February, 1984. On 13-8-1984, the appellant was also served with notice under Section 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act. Pursuant thereto, the appellant submitted a claim for compensation. No award, however, was made thereafter till April 1987.

2-A. In April 1987, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madras being Writ petition No. 4836 of 1987 challenging the said acquisition proceedings. On 12th of May, 1987, the appellant obtained an interim order from the High Court of Madras restraining respondents 1 and 2 from dispossessing the appellant.

3. The contention of the appellant in the said writ petition to the effect that the provisions of Rule 3(b) framed by the Government of Tamil Nadu under Section 55(1) of the said Act, which are mandatory in nature, had not been complied with in their case. has been upheld by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the impugned judgment dated 28-4-1994. The Division Bench has set aside the entire acquisition proceedings after the stage of Section 4(1) Notification and has allowed the writ petition accordingly in part. The Division Bench has, however, directed that there shall be a fresh enquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act in accordance with law. It had further directed that the enquiry shall be completed and if the Government decides to proceed with acquisition the declaration shall be issued under Section 6, of the said Act within six months from the date of the judgment and the award shall be passed within four months thereafter. These latter directions dealing with a fresh enquiry under Section 5A, and subsequent steps directed to be taken by the High Court are the subject matters of challenge in this appeal which is preferred by the appellant. The findings of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court setting aside acquisition proceedings after the stage of Section 4(1) Notification have not been challenged before us by the respondents.

4. It is urged before us by the appellant that the subsequent directions which have been given by the High Court are in clear conflict with the proviso to Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The appellant had also preferred a revision petition before the Madras High Court on the basis of the proviso to Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The revision petition, however, was dismissed. Whereupon the appellant has come before this Court.

5. The relevant provisions of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 after its amendment by Act 6A of 1894 are as follows:

"6(1) :......... 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..........a declaration shall be made to that effect...........and different declarations may be made from time to time in respect of different parcels of any land covered 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,