IMPORTANT POINTS
Notification issued u/s 6 after considering objections u/s 5 is conclusive evidence regarding requirement of land for a public purpose.
Lapse u/s 11-A is statutory while withdrawal u/s 48 is a voluntary and conscious decision.
Decision to withdraw the notifications u/s 4 and 6 should also be notified.

R. M. LODHA, J.

( 1 ) LEAVE granted in SLP (C) Nos. 18030-18031/01 and SLP (C) Nos. 18231-18232/ 2001.

( 2 ) THIS judgment will dispose of a group of fourteen civil appeals by special leave. Since common questions of law have been involved in all these appeals, it is appropriate to deal with and decide them by a common judgment.

( 3 ) WE will confine ourselves only to the facts of Civil Appeals 4117-4118/2001 for the facts of this appeal are similar to the facts of the other appeals comprised in this group.

( 4 ) RAJINDER Singh (1 st appellant) is the owner of the land comprising in Khewat No. 609/ 793 Khasra No. 125/21/3 (0-9), 127/1/2 (2-4), 2 (8-0), 3 (8-18), 8 (5-0), 9/1 (6-12), 125/2 (8-0), 23 (8-0), 24 (4-10) total admeasuring 51 kanals 3 marlas. Arkinder Pal Singh (2nd appellant) owns the land in Khewat No. 610/ 794 Khasra No. 125/2/3 (1-5), 3/2 (2-9), 7/2 (2-0), 8 (8-0), 9/1 (1-0), 13 (8-0), 14 (8-0), 15 (4-10), 17 (8-8), 18 (8-0) total admeasuring 51 kanals 12 marlas. They also jointly own land comprising in Khewat No. 611/795 Khasra No. 124/14/2 (5-16), 15/2 (5-11), 30/2 (0-8), 31 (0-8), 125/9/2 (6-4), 11/1/2/ (1-7), 19 (8-0), 20 (7-19), 21/1 (4-4), 124/16/1 (3-10), 16/4 (1-16), 125/1/2 (4-8), 12 (8-0) total admeasuring 57 kanals 6 marlas. The total land owned by the appellants is 160 kanals 16 marlas situate in Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana.

( 5 ) THE government of Haryana through Urban Estate Department, at the instance of Haryana Urban Development Authority ('huda') sought to acquire the land ( 326. 43 acres) in Sector 20, Jagadhri, for the public purpose namely; the development and utilization of land for residential, institutional, commercial, communication, transport and wholesale market etc. A preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') was issued in this regard that was published in the official gazette on March 7, 1996. The aforementioned land of the appellants was included therein. The appellants filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act before the Land Acquisition Collector. The objections made by the appellants were not accepted and the declaration (final notification) under Section 6 of the Act was issued and published in the official gazette on March 6, 1997. The Land Acquisition Collector then issued notices under Section 9 of the Act calling upon the landowners to make their claim of compensation for all interests in the said land that they may have. The appellants filed their claim before the Land Acquisition Collector. The appellants were then informed by the Land Acquisition Collector to remain present in his office on March 3, 1999 at 11. 30 a. m. According to the appellants, they remained present in the office of the Land Acquisition Collector on March 3, 1999 whole day but no award came to be announced. Since the award was not announced by the Land Acquisition Collector within two years of the publication of declaration made under Section 6, by virtue of Section 11-A of the Act, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land lapsed.

( 6 ) THE appellants treated the lapse of the acquisition proceedings as withdrawal from the acquisition by the Government and, consequently, they filed their claim of compensation for the damage suffered by them under Section 48 (2) of the Act before the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate, Panchkula. The compensation was demanded on diverse grounds, inter alia, that their Various units and establishments got affected by the proposed acquisition; that because of proposed acquisition they lost interest in the land and entered into an agreement to purchase the land elsewhere for establishing their industrial units, poultry farm etc. , that money was invested for the purchase of that land but because of withdrawal from acquisition, the purchase agreements were cancelled and the vendors forfeited the earnest money. Since the merits of the claim have not been examined either by the Land Acqui