JUDGMENT P.G. Agarwal, J. 1. This Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been instituted by S.B. Housing Co-operative Society Ltd., hereinafter referred to as 'the Society', challenging the various Notifications issued in respect of acquisition of land in Land Acquisition Case No. 10/94. 2. The case of the Petitioner is that it is a registered Co-operative Society, registered under the Co-operative Societies Act and the Society owned and possessed a plot of land measuring 4B 11 Ls, covered by Dag No. 19 and 20, of K.P. Patta No. 62, situated at Village Dispur, under Beltola Mouza, hereinafter called as 'the A/L'. The Society in a resolution dated 19.10.85 allotted the A/L to four persons, namely, Sri Rameswarlal Deorah. Respondent No. 8, Smt. Mahadevi Deorah, Respondent No. 9, Miss Kavita Deorah, Respondent No. 10 and Miss Kalpana Deorah, Respondent No. 11 and the said resolution of the society was approved by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative societies. There were certain litigations between the allottees and the Society and the matter came up before this Court also in C.R. 2197/1982/ 2002 as well as in Writ Appeal No. 192/83. The further case of the writ Petitioner is that in respect of allotments no registered sale deeds were executed in favour of the above four allottees and the Petitioner society did not receive any consideration money and they are paying the land revenue regularly. 3. It may be mentioned here that alongwith the Respondent No. 8 was duly served, he has not come forward to contest the present writ petition; whereas, the Respondent No. 9. 10 and 11 have filed a written statement stating, inter alia, that out of the 4 B 11 Ls of land, 4 Kathas of land was sold to one Smt. Kusum Tibrewal, who was later on impleaded as Respondent No. 12, at her own instance and the remaining 3 B 1K 11 Ls. was allotted and sold to Respondent No. 8 to 11 @ 23000/- per Katha and the said allotment was approved in the Annual General Meeting of the Society and subsequently by the Asst. Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The above Respondents further claimed that the said allotment attained finality and that cannot be challenged in the present Writ petition. was allotted and sold to Respondent No. 8 to 11 @ 23000/- per Katha and the said allotment was approved in the Annual General Meeting of the Society and subsequently by the Asst. Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The above Respondents further claimed that the said allotment attained finality and that cannot be challenged in the present Writ petition. The Respondent, however, stated that though the sale deeds were executed but they could not be registered as the Sub-Registrar demanded Stamp duty on such sale deeds, whereas, according to them, no stamp duty is leviable. The Respondents claimed that possession of the land allotted to them was taken over by them on payment of necessary consideration money to the Society, as such, in their balance sheet for subsequent years, i.e. for the year 1989 and 1991, the A/L has not been shown as the property of the society in their audited balance-sheet. 4. After filing of the present Writ petition Smt. Kusum Tibrewal filed an application before this Court for impleading her as party Respondents and after hearing both sides, this Court allowed the application and she was arrayed as Respondent No. 12. She has filed a written statement stating, inter alia, that the writ petition has been filed suppressing the materials facts and intentionally excluding her name although she is an interested party. Further case of Respondent No. 12 is that she had purchased 4 Kathas of land from the Society by two registered sale deeds on payment of the consideration money on 16.10.84 and thus she became the absolute owner of 4 Kathas of land in Dag No. 116 and Dag No. 19 of K.P. Patta No. 4 and 62 of village Dispur, Mouza Beltola. The Petitioner Society also confirmed the sale of 4K of land to Respondent No. 12 and accordingly the said land was mutated in her name. The Respondent has also admitted receipt of notices from the State Govt. as regards acquisition of land and she did not raise any objection in respect of acquisition of 3K 16L of land owned by her and she has also received a part of the compensation. The Respondent has also admitted receipt of notices from the State Govt. as regards acquisition of land and she did not raise any objection in respect of acquisition of 3K 16L of land owned by her and she has also received a part of the compensation. It is, therefore, submitted that the Writ Petitioner has no locus to challenge the acquisition of land belonging to her, as the society ceased to have any right, interest or authority over the land sold to her by registered sale deed way back in the year 1984. The broad facts stated by Respondent No. 12 have not been challenged by the Writ Petitioner. 5. During the course of argument, the Petitioner Society has challenged the allotment of land to Respondent No. 8 to 11 and disbursement of part compensation to Respondent No. 8 to 12. So far the question of allotment of land by the society as well as sale of land, value of the land, order of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, execution and non-execution of sale deed etc. are concerned, these are not the subject matter of consideration in this Writ petition, as the Petitioner has not sought relief on those counts in the present Writ petition. Moreover, these are all disputed question of facts which cannot be gone into in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution and for which the parties will be at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court for relief, if any. 6. Before reverting to the questions raised in this Writ petition, we may like to state the broad facts of the case in order to appreciate the controversy raised. The Gauhati Metropolitan Development Authority, for short GMDA, Respondent No. 5 made an application to the Govt. for acquisition of certain lands on behalf of the GMDA and, accordingly, land measuring 4B 4K 11 Ls, covered by Dag No. 19 and 20 of K.P. Patta No. 62 was identified and the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, Guwahati was requested to expedite the acquisition proceedings. The required notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short 'the Act', and the declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act were published on 15.5.96 and 5.6.96 respectively. The Respondent Govt. took possession of the acquired land on 5.6.96 and the possession of the land was handed over to GMDA on 7.6.96. The required notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short 'the Act', and the declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act were published on 15.5.96 and 5.6.96 respectively. The Respondent Govt. took possession of the acquired land on 5.6.96 and the possession of the land was handed over to GMDA on 7.6.96. The compensation was determined by the Collector at Rs. 1,24,04,860/- and accordingly GMDA deposited the cheque on 12.4.96 but the said cheque was dishonoured, but thereafter, GMDA made the payment to the Collector. GMDA was also asked to deposit another sum of Rs. 12,39,456/- towards revenue and other miscellaneous expenses. The said amount was also subsequently deposited by the GMDA and kept in the Revenue account. The 80% of the compensation amount was subsequently released by the then Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, Guwahati in favour of Respondent No. 8 to 12. According to Mr. N. Dutta, the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, the said disbursement of amount in favour of the private Respondents was due to collusion between them and the Govt. officials connected with the release of the amount. There is no dispute at the bar that as per the relevant records, the acquired land stood in the name of the Society and the Society was the recorded Pattadar along with the Respondent No. 12. We have perused the note-sheets which show that even the Society filed an objection and the matter was brought to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector. It was also informed that there is no registered sale deed in favour of Respondent No. 8 to 11. But inspite of that the money was released in a haste to these persons depriving the recorded Pattadar. 7. Section 30 of the Act reads as follows: 30. Dispute as to apportionment - When the amount of compensation has been settled under Section 11, if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same or any part thereof, or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the Collector may refer such dispute to the decision of the Court. Section 30 thus deals with the dispute as to the person to whom compensation is payable. The question, therefore, shall have to be considered by the appropriate authority in case, the acquisition of land is found to be in accordance with law. Section 30 thus deals with the dispute as to the person to whom compensation is payable. The question, therefore, shall have to be considered by the appropriate authority in case, the acquisition of land is found to be in accordance with law. In the case of A.L. Temple Singirigudi v. Union of India and Ors. 1996 (6) SCC 408 the Apex Court held: The Land Acquisition Officer has to determine the extent of the land, the persons entitled to compensation and the compensation to be determined under Section 23(1) of the Act. If he finds that there is any dispute as to the person entitled to receive the compensation, necessarily he has to deposit the amount under Section 31 of the Act into the court to which reference would lie. On such a dispute having arisen, he has to make a reference to the court under Section 30 of the Act to decide the dispute between the competing persons who set up rival title too the compensation. 8. So far the Petitioner Society is concerned, it has challenged the legality of the acquisition proceedings; whereas, the Respondent No. 8 to 12 have not challenged the same and they are interested for the compensation amount only on the basis of their claims of title. The records produced before us, however, shows that inspite of the objections raised by the concerned officials, the Society, as well as one advocate, who was stranger to the acquisition proceeding, brought allegations as regards release of huge amount to the extent of Rs. 83,05,982/- to Respondent No. 8 to 12. The matter needs to be enquired into to fix the liability in case the Respondent State is saddled with any liability on that count, i.e. for making payment to persons not eligible to receive compensation etc. In the present Writ petition and at this stage, no further enquiry is called for, as the above is not the subject matter for consideration in this Writ petition. 9. Now coming to the question of validity of the acquisition proceedings, we find that the first notification under Section 4(1)and declaration under Section 6(1) were published on 15.5.96 and 5.6.96 respectively. According to the Writ Petitioner, the said Notification lapsed as no award was made within the statutory period of 2 years. Section 11(a) reads as follows: 11-A. Period within which an award shall be made. According to the Writ Petitioner, the said Notification lapsed as no award was made within the statutory period of 2 years. Section 11(a) reads 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 the 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. 10. The above facts have not been disputed by the Respondent State; on the contrary, in their written statement, it is admitted that the Notification/declaration made on 15.5.96 and 5.6.96 lapsed and, as such fresh notifications under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act were published on 19.6.99 and 21.8.99 respectively. The Respondent State has also claimed that the acquisition process was completed under the provisions of Section 12 of the Act and the possession was taken over under Section 16 of the Act. 11. The subsequent notification of 1999 shows that the land has been acquired for public purpose visibly for construction of premises for GMDA. Declaration under Section 6 is also to that effect. Shri Dutta, has, therefore, submitted that in the year 1999, the above public purpose for GMDA was no more in existence as GMD A had in the meantime sold the land to Numaligarh Refinery Ltd., (hereinafter referred to 'NRL') the Respondent No. 7. From the affidavits filed on behalf of the GMDA, we find that the land was acquired for the purpose of developing it as a commercial-cum-office complex and GMDA, took a loan from HUDCO. The possession was taken over by GMDA on 7.6.96 and the Chitha correction was made on 22.7.96. However, there was some objection in the matter regarding furnishing of guarantee etc. by the Govt. and there was delay and as interest liability was climbing, GMDA decided to dispose of the property to repay the loan. The land was thereafter, transferred to Numaligarh Refinery Ltd. and the amount received from 'NRL was repaid to HUDCO against their loan. However, there was some objection in the matter regarding furnishing of guarantee etc. by the Govt. and there was delay and as interest liability was climbing, GMDA decided to dispose of the property to repay the loan. The land was thereafter, transferred to Numaligarh Refinery Ltd. and the amount received from 'NRL was repaid to HUDCO against their loan. The Respondent No. 7, Numaligarh Refinery Ltd. has also filed an affidavit in opposition stating inter alia that the land was in possession of the GMDA and their name appeared in the Chitha also and as 'NRL' were badly in need of land for construction of their office building and for that purpose they purchased the A/L from GMDA by way of a registered sale deed dated 19.4.99 for a valuable consideration of Rs. 1,36,44,000/-. 12. In view of the above admitted facts, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the public purpose mentioned in the notice and declaration under Section 4(i) and 6(i) of the Act in the year 1999 were not in existence and, as such, the above notice and declaration are required to be quashed. Shri Dutta was, however, fair enough to submit that as the 'NRL., Respondent No. 7, is also a Public sector Unit, fresh notification indicating that the said land is required for 'NRL' may be issued, if the authority so desires. 13. Under the Land Acquisition Act, the power is vested with the State Govt. to acquire the land, which is required for any public purpose. The public purpose was subsisting when the first notification was issued, but as the above notification lapsed, the State issued fresh notice and declaration. The public purpose was still subsisting when the second notification was issued. In the case of Rudradhar Trivedi v. State of Maharashtra 1996 (10) SCC 60 , the Apex Court held: It is settled law that the land acquired for public purpose can be transferred to another public purpose. Paramount consideration will be transferred for public purpose. 14. As stated above, the land was transferred by GMDA to NRL and it is also not disputed that the land required by NRL is also public purpose as NRL is a public sector company. The matter can be looked into from another angle. Paramount consideration will be transferred for public purpose. 14. As stated above, the land was transferred by GMDA to NRL and it is also not disputed that the land required by NRL is also public purpose as NRL is a public sector company. The matter can be looked into from another angle. During the pendency of the proceedings, the land was transferred by GMDA to Respondent No. 7 in order to minimize their interest liability and even the transfer was effected by a registered sale deed. The land was thereafter required to be acquired in favour of GMDA to regularize their transfer to NRL. Moreover, NRL has purchased the land by way of negotiation and they cannot be saddled with uncertainties of fresh determination of compensation. We, therefore, hold that the public purpose of the acquisition might have altered by the transfer to a different public purpose but the notice/declaration cannot be found fault with on that count. 15. The Respondent authorities have prayed for dismissing the Writ petition on the ground that there was inordinate delay on the part of the Petitioner's society to approach this Court. It is submitted that the land was transferred by the Society to the private Respondents sometime in the year 1994 and the land was acquired in the year 1996 and possession was taken over from the allottees and handed over to GMDA in 1996 itself. Thereafter, the name of the GMDA was mutated and GMDA sold out the land to Respondent No. 7 by registered deed of sale and hence the interest of so many persons have accrued. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 7 have placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Tilokchand Motichand and Ors. v. H.B. Munshi Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bombay and Anr. reported in AIR 1970 SC 898 , wherein the Apex Court observed: The parties claiming the fundamental rights must move the Court before other rights come into existence. The action of Courts cannot harm innocent parties if their rights emerged by reason of delay on the part of the person moving the Court. 16. reported in AIR 1970 SC 898 , wherein the Apex Court observed: The parties claiming the fundamental rights must move the Court before other rights come into existence. The action of Courts cannot harm innocent parties if their rights emerged by reason of delay on the part of the person moving the Court. 16. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, on the other hand, submits that the Petitioner had no information about the entire matter and that on 7.7.2000 only, when they entered into the land, they were informed about the purchase by Respondent No. 7 from Respondent No. 5. Thereafter, they made certain enquiries and found that a notification was issued on 15.5.1996 in LA Case No. 10/94. It is also further submitted that the Petitioners have approached this Court before the publication of the award. The above contention have been refuted by the Respondents by stating that on 27.5.1996 the Chairman of the Petitioner's Society had informed the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, vide Annexure-8, annexed with the affidavit by Respondent No. 12, that the land allotted to Smt. Kusum Tibrewal and Ors. have been handed over to the allottees and the allottees are in possession of the said land. The Respondent State has produced the records and the learned Additional Advocate General has referred to a letter dated 26.6.96, written by the Petitioner's Society to the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrupo, wherein, amongst others, the Society stated as follows: The Society came to know from reliable source that you acquired the land of the society without giving any notice to the society in favour of GMDA and you also fixed the value of the land of the society measuring 4 bighas 11 lechas at Rs. 1,24,00000/- and the society further come to know that 80% of the value of the said land was paid to M/s Assam Vegetable & Oil products though the said Assam Vegetable & Oil products is in no way connected with the said land of the society. 17. The Respondents have also submitted that the present petition as well as the change of stand of the Society is the outcome of change of guards in the Office bearers of the Society. On perusal of the documents on record, we do find that the Society had the necessary information and knowledge regarding the acquisition of land by the State Govt. On perusal of the documents on record, we do find that the Society had the necessary information and knowledge regarding the acquisition of land by the State Govt. way back in the year 1996 itself and admittedly they approached this Court in the present Writ in the year 2001. 18. The second notice under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued and published on 19.6.99 and the declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act was issued on 21st August, 1999 and published on 7th September, 1999. The copies of the said declaration/notifications published in the Assam Gazette are available with the record. There are three requirements for making a valid notification under Section 4of the Act, namely: (1) publication in the official Gazettee; (2) Publication by way of public notice at convenience place of the same locality and (3) publication in two daily news papers, circulated in the locality, of which at least one shall be in regional language. These are the mandatory requirements and on perusal of the records, we find that all the above requirements have been complied with. 19. The next ground on which the acquisition has been challenged is that no award was passed by the competent authority within a period of 2 years as provided under Section 11A of the Act. 20. In the present case, as stated above, the declaration was made on 7.9.99. The Collector prepared the award on 12.4.2001, i.e. within the statutory period of 2 years and thereafter, as required under the Act, it was sent to the State Govt. for approval. The approval was received mom the State Govt. vide their letter dated 29.8.2001 and the award was made on 5.9.2001. 21. It has been submitted on behalf or the Petitioner's that the last date for making the award was 21.8.2001 and as the impugned award has been passed after approval by the State Govt. on 5.9.2001, the entire acquisition proceeding has lapsed in view of the provision of Section 11A of the Act. 22. The requirement of prior approval of the appropriate Govt. or its authorized Officer was held to be mandatory in the case of State of U.P. and Ors. v. Rajib Gupta and Anr. on 5.9.2001, the entire acquisition proceeding has lapsed in view of the provision of Section 11A of the Act. 22. The requirement of prior approval of the appropriate Govt. or its authorized Officer was held to be mandatory in the case of State of U.P. and Ors. v. Rajib Gupta and Anr. 1994 (5) SCC 686 , wherein it was held: Under first proviso to Section 11 no award can be, made by the Collector without the previous approval of the appropriate Government or of such officer as the appropriate Government may authorize in this behalf. Any award made in violation thereof, renders the a ward non est and void as it hinges upon the jurisdiction of the Land Acquisition Collector or Officer. So far the time limit is concerned, the Apex Court further held: A bare reading of Section 11-A indicates and emphasizes the limitation within which the award should be made and has been statutorily determined, namely, the publication of the declaration. It is, therefore, a mandatory duty cast on the Land Acquisition Collector to make the award strictly in accordance with the limitation under Section 11-A. If no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse. In other words, on expiry of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration unless the proviso is attracted, if no award is made in the meantime, in the eye of law the proceedings initiated under Section 4(1) of the Act culminated in the declaration made under Section 6 shall stand lapsed and no proceedings, in the eye of law thereafter do exists, to take further action. 23. Now coming to the facts of the present case there is no dispute at the Bar and it has been verified from the records produced before us that the approval of the State Govt. was received by the District Collector. The approval was conveyed vide letter dated 29.8.2001 and thereafter the award was signed on 5.9.2001. We have perused the declaration under Section 6 which is dated 21st August, 1999 and that is why the learned Counsel has submitted that the last date of making the award should be 20th August, 2001. was received by the District Collector. The approval was conveyed vide letter dated 29.8.2001 and thereafter the award was signed on 5.9.2001. We have perused the declaration under Section 6 which is dated 21st August, 1999 and that is why the learned Counsel has submitted that the last date of making the award should be 20th August, 2001. However, we find that the declaration under Section 6 was published in the Assam Gazette Extra-ordinary dated 7th September, 1999 and the same was published in the local daily, 'Amar Asom' and also in the North East Times on 16.9.99. Under Section11A it is the date of publication which is relevant and not the date of Notification. The learned Advocate General submits that as the last publication was made on 16.9.99 and as the award was passed/signed by the District Collector on 5.9.2001 after obtaining the necessary approval from the State Govt., the award is not time barred and is not vitiated under the provision of Section 11A of the Act. The confusion, if any, on the point stands settled in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi v. Makran Singh 1995 (2) SCC 497 . It was held that the date of publication in the official Gazette shall be the date for the purpose of computation of the period. The date of publication or declaration in the news paper shall be irrelevant for computation of the said period. The declaration under Section 6(1) in the present case was published in the official Gazette on 7.9.2001 only. We, therefore, hold that the declaration under Section 6(1) is not vitiated and no case for quashing the proceeding on that count is made out. 24. The next submission of Mr. Dutta is regarding non-serving of notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act. Learned Govt. Advocate, on the other hand, has submitted that the award does not become invalid in the absence of notice under Section 9 of the Act and in support of the submission learned Counsel has relied on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Nasik Municipal Corporation v. Harbanslal 1997 (4) SCC 199 . Learned Govt. Advocate, on the other hand, has submitted that the award does not become invalid in the absence of notice under Section 9 of the Act and in support of the submission learned Counsel has relied on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Nasik Municipal Corporation v. Harbanslal 1997 (4) SCC 199 . As stated by us in the foregoing Para the Petitioner Society had the knowledge about the acquisition proceeding way back in the year 1996 but at no point of time they filed any objection challenging the acquisition proceeding and hence in the facts and circumstances of the present case we hold that the impugned award cannot be thrown out on the above count. 25. In view of the aforesaid we hold that the land in question A/1, was acquired validly and no case for quashing the acquisition proceeding of the Notification under Section 4(1)/declaration under Section 6(1) is made out. However, as regards the entitlement or right of the parties as to whom the compensation is payable is concerned, the parties would be at liberty to approach the District Collector in the matter and as and when such application is made before the District Collector, the later shall pass necessary orders for referring the matter under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Writ petition stands disposed of without any order as to costs.