JUDGMENT :

M. S. Sonak, J.

1. Heard Mr. S. Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. M. Salkar learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

2. The challenge in this petition is to the Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the said Act) in the context of the acquisition of the petitioner's property admeasuring 540.75 square metres bearing Chalta No.2A of P.T. Sheet No. 173 of the city of Panaji for the recreational purpose i.e. extension of the existing garden at Caranzalem in Panaji city.

3. Mr. Desai submitted that on the date when this petition was filed, no award had been made under the said Act. However, he submitted that later on i.e. 21.05.2015 an award was indeed made. He submitted that even though no formal amendment has been applied for by the petitioner to challenge this award dated 21.05.2015, if the impugned Notifications are quashed then, as a corollary, even the award dated 21.05.2015 will have to be quashed. Mr. Desai submitted that the petitioner's case is almost entirely based on the provisions of Section 11-A of the said Act which provide that an award under Section 11 of the said Act has to be made within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the said Act and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of land shall lapse.

4. Mr. Desai pointed out that in this case the declaration under Section 6 was made on 07.11.2012 and was published in two newspapers on 09.11.2012 and the Official Gazette on 15.11.2012. He pointed out that two years period from the date of declaration i.e. 07.11.2012 expired on or about 07.11.2014. This petition was therefore instituted on 24.02.2015 for quashing the Notifications under Sections 4 and Section 6 of the said Act because as of 24.02.2015, there was no award made by the respondents.

5. Mr. Desai, in the context of returns filed on behalf of the respondents, submitted that it is extremely doubtful whether the substance of Section 6 declaration was at all given at the site of the acquisition. He, however, submitted that even if it is assumed that the same was done on 22.05.2013 as pleaded, there was an unreasonable delay for which there is no explanation whatsoever in the returns. He submitted that the object of Section 11-A of the said Act is to ensure that awards are made expeditiously. He submitted that this provision is made for the benefit of the party whose lands are compulsorily acquired and have to be construed accordingly. He submitted that merely because there is no time limit prescribed for giving public notice of the substance of the declaration at convenient places, the Authorities cannot give such notice after some unreasonable and unexplained delay. He submitted that if this is permitted then the very object of enacting Section 11-A of the said Act will be frustrated. He relies on R. Kolandaivelu (Dead) by Lrs and others Vs Government of Tamil Nadu and another, (2010) 2 SCC 97 and Ramchand and others Vs Union of India and others(1994) 1 SCC 44, in support of his contentions.

6. Mr. M. Salkar countered the submissions of Mr. Desai by pointing out that Section 6(2) of the said Act makes it clear that every declaration has to be published in the Official Gazette and two newspapers and further, the Collector has to cause public notice of the substance of such declaration to be given at convenient places in the locality. He pointed out that in terms of Section 6(2), the last of the dates of such publication and giving of such public notice is to be construed as the date of the publication of the declaration. He pointed out that since the public notice was given on 22.05.2013, the award made on 21.05.2015 was well within the period of two years prescribed under Section 11-A of the said Act. He submits that the petition was prematurely instituted and there is no challenge to the award ultimately made on 21.05.2015. He submitted that the