JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred seeking quashment of the notices under Sections 6&9 dated 24-9-80 and 12-9-86 issued under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1954. 2. Though in the writ petition various grounds have been taken but Mr. Acharya confined his arguments to one point only and therefore it is not necessary to mention the facts in detail. The admitted facts are that Notification under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act. 1953 was issued on 21st of July, 1979 in respect of agricultural land situate in village Doongari The total land covered by the Notification was 405 bighas and 3 biswas. Out of that, the petitioner's land was 2 bighas and 18 biswas. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 24-9-80 and Notice under Sec, 9 of the Act was issued on 12-9-86. The award was passed on 22-4-87. After the award m passed, possession has been handed over to respondent no. 3. 3. At Para 11 of the writ petition, it has been averred that by the amendment of 1984 in the Central Act Section 11 - A was inserted and the time limit fixed for making an award under Section 11 is two years from the date of the publication of the declaration and as no award was passed within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land apse, and the award given after 24th Sept., 1986 is unauthorised and void. At Para 15 of the writ petition, it has been stated that Section 11-A overrides the provisions of Section 56 of the Act by virtue of Article 254 (1). However, this contention was not pressed by Mr. Acharya during arguments. 4. In reply to the show cause notice, respondent No. 3 has averred that the provisions of Section 56 of the Central Act of 1984 are perfectly legal and valid and there is no conflict between Section 11-A and Section 56 of the Central Act. It has been further averred that the proceedings of acquisition did not lapse of 24-9-86 and the award given after that date is valid under Section 56(4) of the Land Acquisition Act. 5. Respondents No. 1&2 have not filed separate reply. 6. I have heard the arguments for the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 7. 5. Respondents No. 1&2 have not filed separate reply. 6. I have heard the arguments for the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 7. The contention of Mr. Acharya, in brief, was that under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the maximum period for making an award under Section 11 is two years from the date of the publication of the declaration and as in the instant case the notice under Section 6 was published on 29-4-80 and even after two years of the coming into force of the Amendment Act of 1984, the award was not made, the award passed on 22-4-87 is void. He submitted that sub-section (2) of Section 56 is applicable and it should be presumed that the proceedings of acquisition lapsed on the expiry of the period of two years from 24-9-84 though the proceedings were factually pending before the Collector. 8. Mr. Mehta, on the other hand, contended that sub-section (4) of Section 54 of the Act is applicable to the facts of the case and as the Land Acquisition (Rajasthan Amendment) Act, 1987 came into force on 3-8-87, the award could be passed within two years from that date. According to him, in this case as the award was passed on 22-4-87, it was well within the time limit fixed under Section 11 -A read with Section 56 of the Act. In this connection, he referred to the case of Chain Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1989 (2) WLN 616 . He further contended that possession of land has already been taken which has vested in the State, and therefore, even if there was failure on the part of the Collector to make an award within the period of two years from the date of declaration, it will not affect the legallity of the award. He placed reliance on the case of Allahabad Development Authority v. Nasiruzzaman, 1996 (6) SCC 424 . 9. I have given the matter my anxious consideration. The question to be determined is whether because of sub-section (2) of Section 56 of the Land Acquisition Act, the acquisition proceedings had lapsed on 3-1-87, the date on which the land Acquisition (Rajasthan Amendment) Act came into force or the proceedings were saved because of subsection (4) of Section 56 of the Land Acquisition Act. 10. The question to be determined is whether because of sub-section (2) of Section 56 of the Land Acquisition Act, the acquisition proceedings had lapsed on 3-1-87, the date on which the land Acquisition (Rajasthan Amendment) Act came into force or the proceedings were saved because of subsection (4) of Section 56 of the Land Acquisition Act. 10. Section 56(2) is as follows:- 56(2) "Where, in any proceeding under the State Act pending on the date of extension, the State Government, the Collector of the Court has, on or after the said date and before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Rajasthan Amendment) Act, 1987, done anything, taken any action or made any order which is at variance with that as it provided in this Act, such thing, action or order shall, subject to the other provisions of this section be deemed to have been done, taken or made under and in accordance with the provisions of this Act and such proceeding shall not be re-opened or reviewed or liable to be challenged on the ground of not being in accordance with the provisions of this Act." (Emphasis supplied) 11. Sub-section (4) of Section 56 is also reproduced hereunder: (4) "Where, in any proceeding pending under the State Act on the date of extension or instituted after the said date, a declaration under Section 6 or an award under Section 11 has been made after any of the respective periods a specified in Section 6 or Section 11-A, as the case may be, has expired, the said period or the period, as the case may be, shall be deemed to have been extended up to the date of such declaration or award. In a proceeding pending on the date of commencement of the Land Acquisition (Rajasthan Amendment) Act, 1987, such period or periods shall be deemed to have been extended up to, and the declaration or the award as the case may be shall be made within one year and two years respectively after such commencement." 12. In a proceeding pending on the date of commencement of the Land Acquisition (Rajasthan Amendment) Act, 1987, such period or periods shall be deemed to have been extended up to, and the declaration or the award as the case may be shall be made within one year and two years respectively after such commencement." 12. The plain meaning of sub-section (2) of Section 56 is that if any action was taken or an order was made in between the period 24-9-84 i.e. the date of extension and 3-1-87 i.e. the date of commencement of the Land Acquisition Act (Rajasthan Amendment) Act, 1987, the legality of those proceedings shall be presumed under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and the proceedings shall not be opened, reviewed or liable to be challenged on the ground of not being in accordance with the provisions of the Act. However, when no order has been passed or no action was taken i.e. no positive act was done in the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, it cannot be said that still sub section (2) shall apply. The words 'subject to other provisions of this Section' in sub-section (2) are of great significance. The provisions of sub-section (2) shall have to be read along with sub-section (4) of the Act. Sub-section (4) clearly says that if the proceedings were pending on the date of the commencement of the Land Acquisition Act (Rajasthan Amendment) Act, 1987 i.e. on 3-1-87 the award can be made in a period of two years from that date. Since the proceedings were pending as on 3-1-87, obviously, sub-section (4) applies. This argument is unacceptable that the proceedings had terminated by fiction on the expiry of two years from the date, the 1984 Amendment Act came into force. 13. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chain Singh (supra) had an occasion to consider the similar argument which has been advanced by Mr. Acharya. The matter has been dealt with at Paras 23 and onwards. The observations of this Court through Hon'ble Actg. C.J. M.C. Jain as he then was on the arguments advanced in that case regarding the lapse of the proceedings automatically on 3-1-87 deserves to be reproduced:- "The Central Act as amended was extended to the State of Rajasthan. Acharya. The matter has been dealt with at Paras 23 and onwards. The observations of this Court through Hon'ble Actg. C.J. M.C. Jain as he then was on the arguments advanced in that case regarding the lapse of the proceedings automatically on 3-1-87 deserves to be reproduced:- "The Central Act as amended was extended to the State of Rajasthan. There were no time bound provisions similar in nature as they are there in the Central Act, so certain 'transitory and special provisions were considered necessary to be made for the disposal of the proceedings pending under the State Act and for payment of compensation and interest etc. in accordance with the Central Act. It is with this object in view that the provisions consequential to the extension of the Central Act have been made by sub-section (2) of the Rajasthan Amendment Act whereby, Section 56 has been added in the Central Act. It maybe stated that, where declaration under Section 6 is not made within one year or the Award has not been made within two years in the Lana Acquisition proceedings pending on the date of extension, the provision has been made for such pending proceedings in sub-section (4)and provision has also been made in respect of those proceedings, which have been instituted after the date of the Rajasthan Amendment Act, it cannot be conceived that the Legislature ever contemplated that any proceedings will lapse on 3-1-87 and for such lapsed proceedings, no provision is to be made. The word "pending" would mean the proceedings, which have not been disposed of. For undisposed proceedings on 3-1-87 outer limit has been fixed as one year or two years after the date of commencement of the Rajasthan Act. That appears to be the intention behind sub-section (4). That intention finds its manifestation from the words used in sub-section (4) as well and the words "has been made"cannot be taken to mean only to have been made up to 2-1-87 If such would have the intention of the legislature, it would have been clearly stated, as has been stated in sub-section (2) by using the expression "before the commencement of the Rajasthan Amendment Act. The Legislature could have clearly made specific provision by using the expression" has beer made after any of the respective periods as specified in Section 6 or Section 11 but before the commencement of the Rajasthan Amendment Act." 14. At para 34 of the Judgment it was further observed that there was no lapsed the proceedings and sub-section (4) of Sec 56 applies to all pending proceedings. The instant case is fully covered by the judgment rendered in the case of Chain Singh (supra). There is no merit in the contention of Mr Acharya that the proceedings should be deemed to have lapsed on 3-1-87, the date on which the Land Acquisition (Rajasthan Amendment) Act, 1987 came into force, whereby Section 56 was added to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 15. This fact also cannot be lost sight of that the land has already vested in the respondent State and possession has been received by the respondent no. 3. As such, keeping in view the ratio of the case of Allahabad Development Authority (supra) it cannot be accepted that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed on 3-1-87. 16. Consequently, there is no merit in this petition, winch is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******