The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act issued vide G.O.Ms.No.555, dated 21.05.1990, published in the Gazette, dated 03.06.1990, and the notification issued under Section 4(1) vide G.O.Ms.No.1051, dated 04.11.1991, published in the Gazette, dated 25.11.1991, are placed before this Court. The counter averment that the earlier notification was not followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act is not denied. It is also not denied that it is only pursuant to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, dated 25.11.1991, that a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued and land acquisition proceedings were completed. The second notification does not include the land in survey No.441/33, which was assigned to the petitioner. In this factual background, it is not possible to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. Needless to point out that notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is a mere proposal which cannot stand on its own unless the State declares the intention to acquire the land by issuing another declaration under Section 6 of the Act. When once declaration under 6 of the Act is issued, other steps would follow, and if the possession is not taken thereafter, it is always permissible for the State to withdraw the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, which results in withdrawal of the proposals for acquisition of the land. Before publication of declaration, it is always permissible for the State to issue revised notification or errata to the notification and there is no prohibition in law. This legal position is well settled. The learned Assistant Government Pleader relies on the decision in Barkya Thakur v State of Bombay and State of M.P. v Vishnu Prasad.
