JUDGMENT M. Srinivasan, C.J.(Oral): The petitioners land was initially notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 23:3.1981. That proceeding was dropped on 9.10.1983. Again a notification was issued under Sections 4 and 17 together on 3.12.1990 (Annexure P-8). But even before invoking of Section 17 under the later notification the Government had taken possession in 1981, according to the petitioner. But by virtue of the notification dated 3.12 1990 invoking the provisions of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, the land has vested absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances as per Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. As no attempt was made to finalise the proceedings in the acquisition and pay the compensation to the petitioner, he was obliged to file C.W.P. No 780 of 1982 in this Court. The Court passed an order on 21st December, 1992 directing the respondents to pass an award in accordance with law, within two months there from and make arrangement for the payment of compensation to the petitioner. 3. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Collector, Sub Division. Theog, Distt. Shimla passed an order dated 17.2.1993. According to that order, a period of two years had already elasped from the date of declaration and on account of provisions of Section 11-A of the Act, the proceedings automatically lapsed and there was no liability to continue the proceedings under the Act. However, the officer added that the Government having been in possession of the land throughout should compensate the loss caused to the owner, namely, the petitioner and he also assessed the said compensation at Rs.33,280/-. 4. It is that order which is challenged by the petitioner in the present proceedings. According to the petitioner it is not open to the Government to drop the acquisition proceedings, as the land has already been vested with the Government under Section 17 of the Act. It is also the contention of the petitioner that Section 11 -A of the Act will not apply to such cases and the only course open to the Government is to proceed with the acquisition and finalise 1 the compensation to the petitioner and accordingly pass an award. 5. In this connection, reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on Satendra Prasad Jain & ors. v. State of U.P. & ors., AIR 1993, Supreme Court, 2517. 5. In this connection, reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on Satendra Prasad Jain & ors. v. State of U.P. & ors., AIR 1993, Supreme Court, 2517. The Court has held that once Section 17 is invoked, the land vested in the Government under the provisions of sub-Section (1) and therefore Section 11- A cannot have any application to cases of such acquisition. The relevant part of the judgment reads thus: "13. There are two judgments of this Court which we must note. In Rajasthan Housing Board v. Shri Kishan, 1993 (2) SCC 84: (1993 AIR SCW 1163), it was held that Government could not withdraw from acquisition under Section 48 once it had taken possession of the land. In Lt. Governor of Himachal Pradesh v. Avinash Sharma, (1971) 1 SCR 413: (AIR 1970 SC 1576), it was held that "after possession has been taken pursuant to a notification under Section 17(1) the land vested in the Government and the notification cannot be cancelled under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, nor can the notification be withdrawn in exercise of the powers under Section 48 of the land Acquisition Act. Any other view would enable the State Government to circumvent the specific provision by relying upon a general power. When possession of the land is taken under Section 17(1), the land vests in the Government. There is no provision by which land statutorily vested in the Government reverts to the original owner by mere cancellation of the notification." 14. Ordinarily, the Government can take possession of the land proposed to be acquired only after an award of compensation in respect thereof has been made under Section 11. Upon the taking of possess ion the land vests in the Government, that is to say, the owner of the land loses to the Government the title to it. This is what Section 16 states. The provisions of Section 11 .A are intended to benefit the land owner and ensure that the award is made within a period of two years from the date of the Section 6 declaration. This is what Section 16 states. The provisions of Section 11 .A are intended to benefit the land owner and ensure that the award is made within a period of two years from the date of the Section 6 declaration. In the ordinary case, therefore, when Government fails to make an award within two years of the declaration under Section 6, the land has still not vested in the Government and its title remains with the owner, the acquisition proceedings are still pending and, by virtue of the provisions of Section 11-A, lapse. When Section 17(1) is applied by reason of urgency, Government takes possession of the land prior to the making of the award under Section 11 and thereupon the owner is divested of the title to the land which is vested in the Government. Section 17(1) states so unmistakable terms. Clearly, Section 11 -A can have no application to cases of acquisitions under. Section 17 because the lands have already vested in the Government and there is no provision in the said Act by which land statutorily vested in the Government can revert to the owner. 15. Further, Section 17(3-A) postulates that the owner will be offered an amount equivalent to 80 percent of the estimated compensation for the land before the Government takes possession of it under Section 17(1). Section 11 -A cannot be so construed as to leave the Government holding title to the land without the obligation to-determine compensation, an award and pay to the owner the difference between the amount of the award and the amount of 80 per cent of the estimated compensation. 16. Section 11 -A cannot be so construed as to leave the Government holding title to the land without the obligation to-determine compensation, an award and pay to the owner the difference between the amount of the award and the amount of 80 per cent of the estimated compensation. 16. In the instant case, even that 80 per cent of die estimated compensation was not paid to the appellants although Sec. 17(3-A) required that it should have been paid before possession of the said land was taken but that does not mean that the possession was taken illegally or that the said land did not there-upon vest in the 1st respondent It is, at any rate, not open to the third respondent, who, as the letter of Special Land Acquisition Officer dated 7th June, 1990 shows, failed to make the necessary monies available and who has been in occupation of the said land ever since its possession was taken, to urge that the possession was taken illegally and that therefore, the said land has not vested in the first respondent and the first respondent is under no obligation to make an award. 17. There is no merit whatsoever in the submission that compensation can be awarded to the appellants under Section 5, Section 5 postulates payment of compensation for damage done to land during the course of surveying it and doing all other acts necessary to ascertain whether it is capable of being adapted for a public purpose. Section 5 has no application to the instant case." 6. Hence, the contention urged by the respondents has to fail and the prayer of the petitioner has to be granted. Consequently, we quash the order passed by the Land Acquisition Collector dated 17.2.1993. found in Annexure P-13 and issue mandamus to the respondents to complete the acquisition proceedings-within a period the award but also by directing the payment of compensation to the petitioner as per award. Writ petition is f accordingly allowed. The petitioner is to get his costs.Counsels fee Rs.3,000/-. -