[ PER - R.M.BORDE, J. ]

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. The petitioner in this petition is raising challengde to the acquision pcoceedings initiated by respondent State for the purpose of acquisition of land belonging to the petitioner, situate at village Kahala (Bk), Tq. Naigaon, Dist. Nanded. The purpose for the acquisition of land is stated to be extension of Gaothan. The acquisition proceedings are culminated in passing an award under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act"), on 26/11/1993.

3. Certain dates which are material for considering the objections raised in this petition by the petitioner are required to be recorded as below :

4. A notification under section 4(1) of the Act was published in the Government Gazette on 12/07/1990. So far as the declaration under section 6 of the Act is concerned, the same was made on 12/11/1990. The same was published in the Government Gazette on 1/8/1991. It further transpires from the record that it was published in accordance with sub-section (2) of section 6 of the Act in the local newspapers on 6/4/1991 and 23/6/1991, respectively. The last of the publications i.e. the local publication at Chawadi of the village, as prescribed under section 6(2) of the Act, was issued on 28/11/1991. After completing the required formalities as prescribed by the Land Acquisition Act, the award came to be passed on 26/11/1993.

5. The petitioner has challenged the acquisition proceedings mainly on the ground of breach of mandate of law as laid down in section 6(1) proviso (ii) of the Act, that is to say, according to the petitioner, the declaration under section 6 issued by the State authorities is beyond the period of one year after publication of notification under section 4(1) of the Act. The second limb of argument is that the proceedings of the acqusition of land are vitiated on account of non-observance of mandatory provisions contained in section 11A of the Act. The petitioner contends that the award, which came to be passed on 26/11/1993, is beyond the period of two years from the date of publication of declaration (under section 6 of the Act).

6. In the course of argument, the learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the date of declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act shall have to be taken as one and the same for the purposes of computing the period while considering the challenge based on non-observance of mandate laid down by the Land Acquisition Act under section 6(1) proviso (ii) and section 11A of the Act. It would be appropriate to quote the relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. "4.(1) Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government, the Commissioner, or Land Acquisition Officer that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose, or for a Company, a notification to that effect, shall be published in the Official Gazette and in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality (the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the notification). (2) Thereupon it shall be lawful for any officer, either generally or specially authorised by such Government, the Commissioner, or, as the case may be, by the Land Acquisition Officer in this behalf and for his servants and workmen, - to enter upon and survey and take levels of any land in such locality; to dig or bore into the sub-soil; to do all other acts necessary to ascertain whether the land is adapted for such purpose; to set out the boundaries of the land proposed to be taken and the intended line of the work (if any) proposed to be made thereon; to mark such levels, boundaries and line by placing marks and cutting tre