The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of S.11A of the Land Acquisition Act and the determination of the date on which an award can be deemed to be made under S.11.

1. This appeal is against the judgment of the learned single judge dismissing O.P No. 1536/87.101/2 cents of land originally belonging to the 2nd appellant and now belonging to the 1st appellant was the subject-matter of acquisition under the Kerala Land Acquisition Act. Preliminary notification under S.3(1) was issued on 24-2-1981. After considering the objections of the appellants the final notification under S.6 of the Act was issued on 19-1-1984. The Collector signed and made the award on 23-9-1986 and filed the same in the Collector's office on 24-9-1986. It appears that the notice of the said Award was served on the first appellant on 30-9-1986. The appellants challenged the acquisition proceedings firstly on the ground that the award not having been made within a period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration. the acquisition of the land has lapsed under S. HA of the Land Acquisition Act and secondly because of inordinate delay in making the award. The learned single judge has repelled both these contentions and dismissed the original petition. Hence this appeal. There is however a direction to the authorities not to demolish the building on the acquired land until it is got valued and the same is incorporated in mahazar.

2. S.11A of the Land Acquisition Act (Central Act) was added by Act 68 of 1984 and the same came to force on 24-9-1984 and it reads as follows:

"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."

The declaration was made in this case on 19-1-1984 and published in the gazette on 31-1-1984 before commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act. 1984. The acquisition proceedings would lapse only if the award was not made under S.11 within a period of two years from the date of commencement of the Amendment Act i.e. before 24-9-1986. The contention of the appellant is that the award must be regarded as having been made not on 23-9-1986 when it was finalised and signed by the Collector but on the date on which the award canoe to be served on 30-9-1986. As the award was required to be made within a period of two years from the date of the coming into force of the Amendment Act. it was contended that the entire acquisition proceedings lapsed as the award was made beyond a period of two years. Hence the principal question for consideration is as to what is the date on which it can be said that the award was made under S.11 of the Act in this case.

3. Shri Krishna Prasad. the learned counsel for the appellants. contended that the Supreme Court has laid down in the decision reported in AIR 1961 S.C.1500 between Roja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer and another that the award cart be regarded as having been made only when it is served as required under S.12 (2) of the Act. Though that decision was in the context of S.18 with regard to making of an application for reference under that section. the learned counsel for the appellants contended that we cannot have two different dates of making of the award. one for the purpose of S.18(2) of the Act and another for the purpose of S.11A of the Act. He therefore contended that we must apply the principle laid down in that decision and bold that for the purpose of S.11A of the Act. the award must be deemed to have been made only on toe date on which it is served on the person concerned. The learned single judge has not accepted this contention on the ground that the decision of the Supreme Court bears en the interpretation of S.18(2) of the Act and not on S.11A of the Act. We are inclined to agree with the view ta