JUDGMENT

BHARUCHA, J.:— Leave granted.

Heard.

2. This appeal impugns the judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants.

3. The appellants were the owners of land admeasuring approximately 29 bighas situated in Patti Baru, Baraut in Meerut district in the State of Uttar Pradesh. A notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") in respect of the said land was issued on 29th July, 1986. The acquisition was purpoted for the planned development and construction of the Mandi of the Agriculture Market Produce Samiti, Baraut. The notification stated that, in view of the urgency of the public purpose, S. 17(4) of the said Act was applied and the provisions of S. 5A were dispensed with. On 24th October, 1986 the S. 6 declaration was issued which applied to the said land the provisions of S. 17(1). It stated that the Collector of Meerut could, though no award under S. 11 had been made, on the expiration of fifteen days from the date of publication of the notice under S. 9(1), take possession of the said land. The S. 9(1) notice was published on 2nd December, 1986. The appellant impugned the acquisition proceedings by filing a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court (being Writ Petition No. 1841 of 1986). The same was dismissed by a Division Bench on 19th January, 1987. The judgment upheld the acquisition proceedings. It found that there was urgency in the public purpose for which the said land was acquired and that the Krishi Utpandan Mandi Samiti (the third respondent before us) had the means to construct the market yard and godowns. On 27th February, 1987 the possession of the land was taken by the first and second respondents from the appellants and handed over to the third respondent. A Special Leave Petition filed before this Court by the appellants against the ,aforementioned judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court was dismissed on 19th April, 1987.

4. On 13th January, 1989 the third respondent resolved to exclude from acquisition the land at Patti Baru, including the said land. The resolution stated that this was because of shortage of funds and because the proposed Mandi site was far away from Baraut.

5. On 10th August, 1989 the appellants filed the writ petition whereon the impugned judgment and order was made. The writ petition prayed that the respondents, namely, the State of Uttar Pradesh (the first respondent), the Collector, Meerut, (the second respondent) and the Krishi Utpandan Mandi Samiti (the third respondent) be directed by a writ of mandamus to make and publish an award in respect of the said land.

6. On 27th June, 1990 the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Meerut wrote to the third respondent recording that compensation for the purpose of making an award in respect of the lands at Baru Patti had been claimed from the third respondent but that the third respondent had not made the monies available. As a result, after adjusting the time taken in the writ proceedings before the High Court, the period of two years had expired on. 18th January, 1989. There was a clear order of the first respondent that in case the award was not declared within two years from the date of publication of the notification under S. 6 the acquisition proceedings would lapse.

7. On 8th February, 1991 the writ petition was dismissed by the High Court. The High Court noted that it was the appellants own case that more than two years had elapsed since the date of issue of the notification under S. 4. In view of this and by reason of the provisions of S. 11 A, the entire proceedings for acquisition of the said land had lapsed. The High Court noted that counsel on behalf of the appellants had relied upon the fact that even in the absence of an award possession of the said land had been taken. The High Court held that by the mere fact that possession had been taken in pursuance of S. 17(1), the necessity of giving an award, as mandated by S