A. GOPAL REDDY, J. ( 1 ) IN this writ petition the petitioners seek a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in acquiring the lands belonging to them without following due process of law as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and for a consequential direction to pass the award for payment of compensation in respect of their acquired lands situated in Mitnala village, Nandyal mandal, Kurnool District. ( 2 ) THE grievance of the petitioners is that their lands to an extent of 5. 61 acres situated in Mitnala Village, Nandyal Mandal, kurnool District were acquired for the purpose of construction of a tank by taking advance possession in the year 1991 without initiating any proceedings under the Land acquisition Act. It is the further case of the petitioners that after possession was taken, they made several representations to initiate the proceedings under the provisions of land Acquisition Act, but their representations were not considered and ultimately on their written representation dated 3-3-1993 a Notification under Sec. 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act ) was issued which was published in the A. P. Gazette on 28-10-1999, but so far no award has been passed by the respondents for payment of compensation in respect of their acquired lands though 10 years of time has elapsed from the date of taking possession of their lands. Hence, they filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to pass an award and to pay the compensation in respect of their lands. ( 3 ) ON behalf of the respondents, the revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal-5th respondent filed his counter-affidavit. In the counter-affidavit it is stated that the executive Engineer, i. e. , the 4th respondent herein, who is the requisitioning authority has been asked to provide the required funds to meet the Land Acquisition charges and P. V. proposals were also submitted to the Collector, Kurnool on 23-05-2001 for approval and soon after approval of the same and receipt of funds, 80% of the compensation amount with all statutory benefits permissible under the Act will be paid to the petitioners and other land owners after due enquiry under the provisions of the L. A. Act. ( 4 ) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioners are the farmers having small extents of lands and their lands were acquired by the government for the purpose of construction of a tank and advance possession was taken as far as in the year 1991, but no steps were taken to initiate the land acquisition proceedings even after a long lapse of more than eight and half years, only on the representation of the petitioners the respondents woke up from the deep slumber and got issued the notification under Section 4{1) of the Act which was published in the A. P. Gazette on 28-10-1999. Even after lapse of two and half years from the date of publication of 4 (1) notification no steps have been taken by the respondents to pass the award. In effect, the petitioners, who are all small farmers, which fact was not denied by the respondents in spite of specific assertions, were deprived of their livelihood. ( 5 ) COOLEYS at Treatise on constitutional Limitation at page-528 emphasized, "when the property of an individual is compulsorily diverted to some other purpose strict compliance of statute should be followed". ( 6 ) CRAIES on Statute Law, 6th edition page-282, has also emphasized that the proceedings for compulsory acquisition must be concluded without unreasonable delay, which reads as follows:"powers conferred by Act of parliament must, as a rule, be exercised within a reasonable time after notice has been given to the persons whose property will be affected by their exercise, otherwise the notice will be liable to be treated as being no longer effective. Where powers are given to take lands compulsorily for the execution of works, the exercise of powers must be bona fide commenced within the time limited for the completion of the works". (Underline is mine) ( 7 ) THE Legislature in conscious of delay in finalizing the land acquisition proceedings amended the Land Acquisition act by Act 68 of 1984 introducing time limit before which declaration under Section 6 has to be made. By the same Act, Sec. 11-A has been introduced, which fixes a time limit for making of the award under Section 11 of the Act, failing which the proceeding for the acquisition of the land is to lapse. By the same Act, Sec. 11-A has been introduced, which fixes a time limit for making of the award under Section 11 of the Act, failing which the proceeding for the acquisition of the land is to lapse. Section 11-A is as follows:11-A. Period within which an award shall be made;- The Collector shall make an award under Section 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 the 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. Explanation:- In computing the period of two years referred to in this Section, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the said declaration is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded". Whereas Sections 6 and 11-A spring into action only when the authorities promptly issues notification under Section 4 (1) of the act. But in the present case, the authorities took 8 long years for issuing notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act after taking possession of the land for public purpose. Can it be said that the petitioners have to suffer for no fault of them due to deliberate inaction on the part of the welfare State? The answer will be an emphatic no . Before the land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 whenever there is a delay in payment of compensation, the Courts awarded equitable compensation for such delays. Legislature in its wisdom to avoid such delays in completing the land acquisition proceedings introduced Section 23 (1-A) by act 68 of 1984 making it compulsory to award 12% per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of publication of the notification under section 4 (1), in respect of such land, to the date of award of Collector or the date of taking possession of the land whichever is earlier. But such additional market value can be paid only from the date of notification as held by the Apex Court recently in Siddappa vasappa Kuri and another v. Special Land acquisition Officer. But such additional market value can be paid only from the date of notification as held by the Apex Court recently in Siddappa vasappa Kuri and another v. Special Land acquisition Officer. In effect, the petitioners, who are deprived of their property and livelihood in the year 1991 till the date of issue of notification dated 28-10-1998, are not entitled to additional market value or interest in view of the above declaration. ( 8 ) IT is well settled that the High Court in exercise of equitable jurisdiction under article 226 in a proper case can grant declaratory relief declaring the act of State or statutory body as ultra vires and consequential relief for the injury caused due to such ultra vires act. ( 9 ) IT is relevant to quote the observation of Justice M,p. Thakkar speaking for the bench in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji, while considering sufficient grounds for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. " It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. " ( 10 ) THE Apex Court in Chandra Bansisingh v. State of Bihar while considering the delay in passing the award between issuance of notification and taking over possession awarded equitable compensation calculated at the rate of 7% per annum for two years on the value of land owned by each land holder. ( 11 ) SIMILARLY, the Apex Court in Ram Chand v. Union of India after referring the various decisions of it: in State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha ( (1969) 2 SCC 187 ); mansuram v. S. P. Pathak ( (1984) 1 SCC 125 ); state of M. P. v. Vishnu Prasad Sharma ( (1966) 3 SCR 557 ); Ambalal Purshottam v. Ahmedabad municipal Corporation ( (1968) 3 SCR 207 ); khadim Hussain v. State of UP. ( (1976) 1 SCC 843 ); and also English Courts in Tiverton and north Devon Railway Company v. Robert francis Loosemore ( (1884) 9 AC 480); Grice v. Dudley Corporation ( (1958) 1 Ch D 329); birmingham City Corporation v. West Midland baptist (Trust) Association (Incorporated) ( (1963) 3 ALL E. R. 172) and elaborate consideration on the issue of delay in completion of acquisition proceedings after analyzing various provisions of L. A. Act held that the damages suffered by the land owner to be taken into account in fixing the compensation in the light of the mandate under Article 31-A (1) second proviso, and concluded that the authorities who are enjoined by the statute concerned to perform their duties within a reasonable time, and as such they are answerable to the court why such duties have not been performed by them, which has caused injury to claimants awarded additional compensation to the cultivators at the rate of 12% p. a. after expiry of 2 years from the date of judgment in Aflatoon s case. ( 12 ) IN view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners have to be compensated for depriving of their property for 8 years. No doubt, additional compensation at the rate of 12% p. a. was recognized as appropriate compensation, but in view of the fact that the land acquisition proceedings are initiated in 1998, by the time the market value has enormously increased and any such percentage of compensation is fixed, it will burden the State exchequer. ( 13 ) IN view of the same, 1 am of the view that the petitioners are entitled to be awarded crop compensation from the date of possession till the date of issuance of notification in addition to the market value and other benefits. Accordingly, a sum of rs. 1,000/- per acre per year will be just and reasonable compensation to which the petitioners are entitled towards crop compensation. Accordingly, a sum of rs. 1,000/- per acre per year will be just and reasonable compensation to which the petitioners are entitled towards crop compensation. ( 14 ) IN the result, the writ petition is allowed and the Executive Engineer, irrigation Department, MIW Division, nandyal-4th respondent is directed to provide necessary funds towards payment of compensation to the petitioners in respect of the acquired lands of the petitioners within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on providing such funds by the 4th respondent, the Land acquisition Officer-5th respondent shall pass award and pay the compensation to the petitioners within two months thereafter along with Rs. l,000. 00 (Rupees one thousand) per acre per year towards crop compensation from the date of taking possession till the date of notification. No costs.