(A.S. Oka, J.)

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGP for the respondent nos.1 to 3. Rule. The learned AGP waives Rule notice for the respondent nos.1 to 3. Considering the nature of the controversy, it is not necessary to serve notice of Rule to the respondent no.4. Rule is taken up for final hearing.

2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the land which is more particularly described in paragraph no.3 of the petition. The case made out by the petitioner is that possession of the said land was taken over in the year 1972 even prior to date on which the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) was issued. The case made out in the petition is that the notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act was issued on 18th March, 1990 and notices under Section 9(3)(4) of the said Act were issued on 14th August, 1992. The case made out in the petition is that since the year 1972, the petitioner is out of possession and no compensation has been paid as the award under Section 11 of the said Act has not been made. Reference has been made to a civil suit filed by the petitioner in the Civil Court. The contention raised in the civil suit is that the State Government is not entitled to drop the process of acquisition. The said suit has been dismissed on the ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though the acquisition has lapsed in view of Section 11-A of the said Act, the petitioner is deprived of both, his land and compensation. He invited our attention to the judgment and order dated 8th August, 2011 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.1372/2009 (Jailing Baburao Linge Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others) and submitted that a direction be issued to complete the acquisition proceedings by making an award. He also invited our attention to the prayers made in the petition by carrying out amendment and especially prayer clause (B-1).

4. The learned AGP appearing for the respondent nos.1 to 3 has tendered reply of the respondent no.2. In the reply, it is not disputed that the acquisition has lapsed. It is, however, pointed out that a decision has been taken to challenge the judgment and order of this Court on which the petitioner is relying upon.

5. We have given careful consideration to the submissions. What is on record is the fact that the notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act was issued on 13th June, 1990 and on 14th August, 1992, notice under Section 9(3)(4) was issued by the respondent no.2. The fact that the notice under Section 9(3)(4) was issued shows that declaration under Section 6 of the said Act was made and published prior to 14th August, 1992. Section 11-A of the said Act reads thus:

"11A. Period within which an award shall be made -

(1) The Collector shall make an award under section 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 proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse.

Provided that in a 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.

Explanation : In computing the period of two years referred to in this section, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the said declaration is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded."

6. Thus, the legal effect of Sub-section (1) of Section 11-A is that the entire proceeding for the acquisition of the land in question shall lapse if the award under Section 11 is not made within a period of two years from the date of publication of declaration under Section 6. In the present case, the proceeding lapsed on completion of period of two years from the date on which declaration under