The time limit prescribed in S.11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is for making the award as such and not for issuing notice of making the award. Unreasonable delay in land acquisition proceedings must be considered in a realistic manner.

1. Land acquisition proceedings relating to 101/2 cents of land originally belonging to the second petitioner and now belonging to her husband, first petitioner, is challenged in these proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. The petition is opposed by the respondents, on whose behalf a counter-affidavit has been filed.

2. S.3(1) notification in this case was issued on 24-2-1981 and published thereafter. Notice was served on the petitioners on 20-3-1981. Ext.P1 is a copy of the notification. It appears, second petitioner filed Ext.P2 objections against the acquisition on the ground that the land contains her residence and sole source of livelihood, viz., tea shop. The Board of Revenue under Ext.P5 order approved the draft declaration under S.6 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act. That was on 19-1-1984. The declaration was published in the gazette and newspapers on 31-1-1984. The Collector signed the award and filed the same on 24-9-1986. It appears, notice of the award was served on the first petitioner on 30-9-1986, though this is disputed by the petitioners. It is not known if such notice was served on the second petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on S.11A incorporated in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the amending Act 68/84, which reads thus:

"The Collector shall make an award under S.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 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."

It is unnecessary to extract the explanation to this section.

4. Since in this case declaration was published before the coming into force of the amending Act 68/84, the award is required to be made within a period of two years from the date of the commencement of the amending Act on 24-9-1984. There is no dispute that the award was signed and filed on 24-9-1986. If this date is to be reckoned then the award is made within the time. According to the petitioners, mere signing or filing of the award does not amount to making an award within the meaning of S.11A and that the award can be said to have been made only when notice of the award under S.12(2) is served on the persons interested in the land. If that be so, the award cannot be regarded as having been made within the time stipulated in S.11A and consequently proceedings must be declared to have lapsed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed strong reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer and Another, reported in AIR 1961 SC 1500. The question which arose for consideration in that case related to the starting point of the period of the limitation prescribed for application for reference under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which corresponds to S.20 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961. Under this provision an application for reference has to be made if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award, and in other cases within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under S.12(2) or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire. The Supreme Court construed the expression 'the date of the Collector's award' in proviso (b) to mean the date of communication of award or the date on which the person concerned actually or constructively comes to know of the award. The decision rested on the scope of the award, on the construction of S.18 and in particular proviso (b) to that section, with reference to the starting point of limitation. According to proviso (a) the perio