JUDGMENT :

A.S. Chandurkar, J.

Challenge raised in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the award dated 02.12.2015 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jigaon Project, District Buldhana under Section 11(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act of 1894). According to the petitioners, the said award has not been passed in the manner contemplated by Sections 6 to 9 of the Act of 1894 and is also in breach of provisions of Section 11 A thereof.

2. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 came to be issued proposing to acquire land admeasuring 30 Hectares 91 Ares for resettlement of residents of village Yerli, Taluka Nandura, District Buldhana in view of submergence of lands under Jigaon Project. Notice in that regard was published in the Tahsil Office, Nandura on 02.02.2013. The objections raised to the proposed acquisition were submitted by twenty four land owners on 11.02.2013. The same were considered in an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 on 05.03.2013. These objections came to be finally decided on 24.06.2013. Since it was decided to acquire the said lands, a declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act of 1894 came to be published in the official gazette on 25.07.2013. The declaration was also published in daily ‘Shiv-Sandesh’ on the same day and in daily ‘Nirbhay Sanchar’ on 06.08.2013. As per the said award, public notice of the declaration under Section 6(2) as well as notices under Section 9(1) and (2) of the Act of 1894 came to be issued on 05.12.2013. Thereafter on 02.12.2015 the award in question came to be passed.

This writ petition was filed on 23.12.2013 raising a challenge to the notification issued under Section 4(1) as well as subsequent notices issued under Section 9 of the Act of 1894. On 24.12.2013 while issuing notice this Court permitted the acquisition proceedings to continue but directed that the possession of the petitioners shall not be disturbed. Thereafter on 24.02.2016 it was informed that the award dated 02.12.2015 had been passed. The writ petition was amended and challenge was raised to the award dated 02.12.2015. This Court called upon the respondents to explain as to whether the final notification under Section 6 had been published after service of notices under Section 9 (3) and (4) of the Act of 1894. Since it was urged that declaration under Section 6(2) had been made after issuance of notices under Section 9 of the Act of 1894, the writ petition was admitted for consideration.

3. Shri S.D. Chopde, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the award in question had not been made within a period of two years from the declaration under Section 6(2) of the Act of 1894 which was in breach of the provisions of Section 11-A of the Act of 1894. Though it was sought to be projected by the respondents that declaration under Section 6(2) was made on 05.12.2013 there was no material on record to justify the same. Despite a direction issued by this Court to produce the inward and outward registers maintained by the Office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer to indicate that the declaration under Section 6(2) had been published and notices under Section 9(1) and (2) had been duly issued, the same were not produced by stating that there was a clerical error in not maintaining the said registers. The same were avoided to be produced. On the contrary, according to the respondents on 05.12.2013 itself the said declaration under Section 6(2) was made and notices under Section 9(3) and (4) came to be issued to the persons interested. This was without complying with the requirements of Sections 7 and 8 of the Act of 1894. The Collector failed to take an order for the acquisition of the land after declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894. Further the Collector also failed to mark the land and have it measured as required by Section 8 of the Act of 1894. Though the respondents sought to rely upon the aspect that th