G.S.Sistani, J. - (1.)This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner seeks a direction, order or writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the impugned Notification bearing No.F.11(17)/91/L & B/LA/6518 dated 28.04.1995 as also Notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
(2.)The necessary facts to be noticed for disposal of this petition are that a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was issued on 28.04.1995, a Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 26.04.1996. Aggrieved by the aforesaid two notifications, the Resident Welfare Association of the area filed a Writ Petition (Civil) No.3938/1996 titled as 'Parhlad Vihar Residents Association and Ors vs. Union of India and Ors' in the year 1996. The challenge was primarily laid to the invoking of the urgency provision under Land Acquisition Act and a prayer for quashing was made. In the year 2000, the said Welfare Association filed another writ petition pertaining to land falling in Parhlad Vihar Residential colony. By an order dated 09.07.2007, by a common judgment, both the writ petitions were dismissed which led to filing of a SLP No.12522-12523/2007 before the Supreme Court of India. By an order dated 03.08.2007, interim stay was granted. By a common judgment dated 21.03.2012, the SLPs were allowed, however, the judgment was rendered in the case of Ramdhari Jindal Memorial Trust vs. Union of India and Ors., (2012) 11 SCC 370. The Supreme Court of India quashed the invocation of urgency provision and declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The competent Authority was directed to invite objections under Section 5(A) of the Land Acquisition Act pursuant to Notification dated 28.04.1995 and was directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. It is claimed by the petitioner that Land Acquisition Collector did not issue any notice to the petitioner and other similarly situated persons by way of a notice/Public notice/Publication inviting objections under Section 5(A) of the Land Acquisition Act. Instead of inviting objections under Section 5(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, the Land Acquisition Collector issued a Notification dated 26.04.2013 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The said notification was issued by the LAC after a gap of more than one year from the date of judgment dated 21.03.201 It is the case of the petitioner that the said notification has not been issued within the stipulated period of one year specified in proviso to SubSection 1 of Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act. Mr.Jain, counsel for the petitioner submits that this issue is no longer res integra. In the case of Sunil Goel & Ors. etc vs. State & Ors and other, (2014) 211 DLT 382, an identical question has arisen and the following issues were framed:
"(i) Whether the notification is a nullity as having been made beyond the time period prescribed by the Land Acquisition Act for issuing a declaration under Section 6?

(ii) .

(iii) .".

(3.)Mr.Jain, counsel for the petitioner relies on para 18 of the aforesaid judgment which reads as under:
"Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel on both sides, we are of the view that the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners ought to be accepted. This is so because the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Padmasundara Rao covers the present case on all fours. The very issue before the Supreme Court, as pointed out by us earlier, was whether, after the quashing of a declaration under Section 6 of the said Act, a fresh period of one year would be available to the State Government to issue another declaration under Section 6. This question has been answered by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Padmasundara Rao in the negative. In other words, when a Section 6 declaration is quashed, it does not give a fresh period of one year to the Government to issue another Section 6 declaration. The Section 6 declaration, after such quashing, if at all, can be issued only during the balance period".

He submits that second notification was not issued within the period of one year from 21.03.2012, when the notification was quashed.