Hon’ble R.N. Misra, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for issuance of writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring the land acquisition proceedings in respect of plots in dispute to have lapsed under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act). They have further prayed for the relief from their dispossession over the land. In the alternative they have taken shelter of Section 48 of the Act.

2. We have heard Shri W.H. Khan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri J.H. Khan, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 3 and Shri A.K. Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2.

3. Admittedly, the plot nos. 115 and 8 and plot Nos. 98, 163, 12, 14 , 90, 101 and 102 situate in village Jhalwa tehsil Sadar District Allahabad belonged to the petitioners No. 1 to 3 respectively. The respondents proposed to acquire the said plots for the construction of residential colony and notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 21.1.1990. Thereafter, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 31.12.1991. The copies of the aforesaid notifications are Annexures 1 and 2 respectively. By way of notification under Section 6 of the Act, the inquiry under Section 5A of the Act was dispensed with alleging the urgency. The petitioners filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13700 of 1992 in which the interim order dated 7.4.1992 was passed by this Court restraining the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the disputed plots unless they had already been dispossessed. The copy of the order is Annexure-3. The petitioners’ houses are situate in plot No. 163 since 1992, plot No. 90 since 1980 and plot No. 115 since 1982. The petitioners are still in possession of the disputed plots and they were never dispossessed by the respondents. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed on 24.7.2000 being infructuous by passage of time and accordingly the interim order dated 7.4.1992 also stood vacated. The copy of the order is Annexure-4. In the writ petition, it has been alleged that the petitioners were never dispossessed by the respondents and they are still continuing in possession. No award has been made by the Collector Allahabad as yet and no compensation has been paid to them.

4. In the counter affidavit filed by one Dinesh Mishra, Law Inspector, Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad, it has been alleged that the possession of the land was taken by Collector on 1.11.2002 and on the same day possession was handed over to the respondent No. 2. However, it has been alleged in the counter affidavit that the award has not yet been made. The acquisition has already become final against the petitioners and writ petition challenging the notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act have already been upheld, therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable. It has also been alleged in the counter affidavit that the respondents had no knowledge about the dismissal of the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioners on 24.7.2000. Along with the counter affidavit, the possession memo Annexure CA-1 has been filed.

5. This is admitted fact that the petitioners had challenged the notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act in respect of the plots in dispute by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13700 of 1992, in which interim order regarding dispossession was passed on 7.4.1992 and the said writ petition was dismissed on 24.7.2000 and the stay granted earlier was vacated. The possession memo Annexure-CA-1 shows that the possession was allegedly taken on 1.11.2002, meaning thereby much after two years of dismissal of the writ petition in which the stay had been granted. Thus, apparently there was no urgency as required under Section 17 of the Act. The award has not yet been made, this is also admitted position. Thus, it is also clear that the period of much more than two years have passed and the Collector has not made any award rega