K. J. VAIDYA, R. C. MANKAD, J.

( 1 ) PETITIONER has filed this petition challenging the decision of the Land Acquisition Officer and Deputy Collector Patan rejecting his application to withdraw notice issued under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act (`act for short) on the ground that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed.

( 2 ) PETITIONER was occupant of land bearing survey Nos. 864 and 867 of village Samalpati and Matarwadi in Patan Taluka of Mehsana District. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 22/04/1987 to acquire the said land for the campus of North Gujarat University. Notification under Section 6 of the Act for the acquisition of the land was issued on 12/05/1988 Notice under Section 9 (1) of the Act was issued on 24/05/1988 Petitioner challenged the acquisition of his said land by filing petition being Special Civil Application No. 2774 of 1988 in this court. Division Bench of this court while issuing notice pending admission on the said petition on 3/06/1988 granted ad interim relief in the following terms : -IN the meanwhile by way of ad interim injunction the respondents are restrained from taking possession of the land of the petitioner till 22-6-1988. Direct service. It is stated that the ad interim relief granted by this court is still in operation.

( 3 ) IT is submitted that under Section 11a of the Act the Land Acquisition Officer is required to make award under Section 11 within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act and if no award is made within that period the entire proceedings for acquisition of the land would lapse. According to the petitioner since notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 12/05/1988 period of two years expired on 11/05/1990 The Land Acquisition Officer was required to make award under Section 11 of the Act on or before May 11 1990 The Land Acquisition Officer however did not make award before that date and consequently the entire proceedings for acquisition of the petitioners aforesaid land have lapsed. In this view of the matter the petitioner made application dated 7/06/1990 to the Land Acquisition Officer and Deputy Collector Patan to withdraw the notice issued by him under Section 9 (1) of the Act on the ground that the entire proceedings for acquisition of the land have lapsed. The Land Acquisition Officer however by his order dated 8/06/1990 rejected this application. The petitioner has therefore approached this court by way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

( 4 ) THE contention of Mr. J. R. Nanavati learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Land Acquisition Officer was required to make award on or before 11/05/1990 as contemplated under Section 11a of the Act and he having failed to do so the entire acquisition proceedings have lapsed. According to Mr. Nanavati the land in question is no longer to be considered as under acquisition and therefore now there is no question of making award under Section 11 of the Act or taking possession of the land under Section 16 of the Act. When attention of Mr. Nanavati was drawn to explanation to Section 11a of the Act Mr. Nanavati urged that the action or proceeding contemplated by the explanation is action or proceeding to be taken after the making of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act and before passing of the award under Section 11 of the Act. Mr. Nanavati submitted that such actions are those contemplated by Sections 7 to 11 of the Act. The question of taking possession of the land under Section 16 of the Act arises only when the award is made under Section 11. According to Mr. Nanavati possession of the land is to be taken in pursuance of the award and not in pursuance of the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act. Therefore possession which is to be taken after the making of the award under Section 16 of the Act cannot be said to be in pursuance of the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act. Mr.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document