( 1 ) THIS writ petition amply demonstrates the indifferent attitude of the welfare State/ respondent officials in depriving the land owners of their livelihood and not paying the compensation leaving them to their fate even after 20 years of taking possesstion of their lands. ( 2 ) IT is not in dispute that the lands of the petitioners were taken possession by the respondents on 29-10-1980 though a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") was published in A. P. Gazette on 29-8-1986 an award could not be passed for want of funds made available by the requisitioning department. ( 3 ) THE third respondent filed a counter- affidavit stating that he addressed a letter to the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation. Circle, Chittoor for allotment of necessary funds for the purpose of payment of compensation and requested to deposit a sum of Rs. 37. 50 lakhs towards compensation payable to the land losers of Kalathuru and k. V. B. Pura villages. The Superintending engineer, Irrigation Circle, in turn addressed a letter on 6-11-2000 to the Chief Engineer, irrigation for sanction of an amount of rs. 37. 50 lakhs being the amount payable to the land losers for payment of compensation for the lands already acquired for excavation of distributory channel so as to enable the third respondent to deposit the said amount with the Land Acquisition Officer for enabling him to pass an award. Since the award could not be passed in accordance with Section 11-A of the Act, proceedings initiated on 29-8-1986 have been lapsed and necessary action will be taken to pay compensation to the land losers by initiating fresh land acquisition proposals and the same will be issued as soon as funds are received from the Government. ( 4 ) THE averments made in the counter- affidavit would clinchingly show the dilatory tactics adopted by the respondents, to perpetuate the injustice to the land owners keeping the issue alive and not paying compensation even after 23 years of deprivation of land and livelihood of the land owners. ( 4 ) THE averments made in the counter- affidavit would clinchingly show the dilatory tactics adopted by the respondents, to perpetuate the injustice to the land owners keeping the issue alive and not paying compensation even after 23 years of deprivation of land and livelihood of the land owners. ( 5 ) IT is well settled that once possession is taken in advance and necessary notification was issued proposing to acquire the land under the Act, by invoking urgency clause under Section 17 (4) of the Act dispensing with enquiry under Section 5 (A) and possession will be taken under Section 17 (1) after the expiry of 15 days from the publication of notice under Section 9 (1 ). The declaration is conclusive evidence of service of notice under Section 4 (1) of the Act and the land absolutely vests with the Government though possession was anterior to the notification under Section 4 (1) (See lt. Governor of H. P. v. Sri Avinash Sharma (1970) 2 SCC 149 ). ( 6 ) THE records produced by the government Pleader also discloses that notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was approved in G. O. Rt. No. 1101, dated 29-08-1986 of Irrigation and Command Area development Department dispensing with enquiry under Section 5-A invoking urgency clause under Section 17 (4) which was published in Gazette followed by declaration under Section 6 of the Act which was approved in Government Memo No. 1700/ irr. VII-1/86 dated 28-08-1986 directing to take possession of the property on expiry of 15 days from the date of publication of notice under Section 9 (1 ). After such publication necessary notices were issued. In view of the same, proceedings will not lapse for not passing the award as contemplated under section 11-A of the Act. On issuance of notification under Section 4 (1), declaration under Section 6 and notice under section 9 (1), the land vests with the government free from all encumbrances. ( 7 ) THE Apex Court in Satendra Prasad Jain v. State of U. P. categorically held that section 11-A cannot be so construed as to leave the Government holding title to the land without the obligation to determine compensation, make an award and pay to the owner the difference between the amount of the award and the amount of 80% of the estimated compensation. ( 8 ) THE Apex Court in Hissar Improvement trust v. Rukmani Devi categorically made it clear that liability to pay compensation is on the Collector and the same canbe enforceable against the Government. The land owner is not concerned with the agreement between the Collector who issued notification and the requisitioning department to provide funds, right of the land lower can be enforceable against the Government for payments of compensation. ( 9 ) IN view of the same, once the lands are notified by issuing notification, the Land acquisition Officer is under obligation to pass award and pay the compensation to the land owners and can recover the same from the requisitioning department. But unfortunately, in the present case, the collector tries to pass on his liability to other department stating that the requisitioning department has not deposited the amount for enabling him to pass an award. ( 10 ) IN view of the same, the respondents are hereby directed to pass an award within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and shall pay the compensation due to the petitioners within six weeks from the date of passing of the award. ( 11 ) THE writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) Payable to the landholders along with award amount.