JUDGMENT

 Leave granted.

2. Notification under S. 4 (1), of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short, the Act), as amended by Central Act 68 of 1984 was published in the gazette on April 12, 1988 acquiring an extent of 0.87.0 hectare of the land bearing Survey Nos. 84/1-81 and 85/1-B of Madivilagam village, Sriperumpudur Taluk, Chengai Anna District in Tamil Nadu State, for public purpose. After conducting enquiry under S. 5-A, declaration under S. 6 was published in the gazette on April 29, 1989 and the local publication was made on May 2, 1989.

3. Calling in question the validity of the notification and the declaration, the respondent filed Writ Petition No. 12888/90. On June 18, 1992, the single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition. Writ Appeal No. 1079/92 was filed. Pending writ petition, the respondent had obtained stay of dispossession by order dated October 19, 1990 and the same was continuing pending appeal. When the writ appeal had come up for final hearing, one of the contentions raised, which persuaded the Division Bench for acceptance, was that under S. 11-A, the award should be made within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration, and since the award was not made within that period, notifications under S. 4(1) and 6 stood lapsed. On that finding by order dated April 6, 1993, the appeal was allowed and the notification under S. 4(1), and declaration under S. 6 were quashed. Thus this appeal by special leave.

4. Section 11-A, of the Act, as brought on statute by Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 68/84 adumbrates that the Collector shall make an award under S. 11 within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceeding for acquisition of the land shall lapse provided that in case where the said declaration has been published before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 1984, the award shall be made within a period of two years from such commencement. The explanation amplified that in computing the period of two years referred to in the section, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken, in pursuance of the said declaration, is stayed by an order of the Court, shall be excluded. The Division Bench held that the order restraining dispossession made by the High Court does not amount to stay of further proceedings nor it prevented the land acquisition officer to take further action in pursuance of the declaration under S. 6. Since no award was made within a period of two years from the date on which local publication has been made, the proceedings stood lapsed.

5. The Parliament enacted S. 11-A, with a view to prevent inordinate delay being made by the Land Acquisition Officer in making the award. The price to be paid for the land acquired under compulsory acquisition is the prevailing price as on the date of publication of S. 4(1), notification. The delay in making the award deprives the owner of the enjoyment of his property or to deal with the land whose possession has already been taken, and delay in making the award, would subject the owner of the land to untold hardship. With a view to relieve hardship to the owner or person interested in the land and to remedy the lapses on the part of the Land Acquisition Officer in making the award, S. 11-A was enacted which enjoins making of award expeditiously. So, outer limit of two years from the last of the dates of publications, envisaged in S. 6 of the Act was fixed. If he fails to do so, all the acquisition proceedings under the Act would stand lapsed and the owner of the land or person interested in the land is made free to deal with the land as unencumbered land. Cognizant to the fact that the acquisition proceedings are questioned in a Court of law, the Parliament enacted Explanation to S. 11-A, declaring that the period during which action or proceedings taken in pursuance of the declaration under