ORDER The petitioner is a Choultry. It is possessed of movable and immovable properties. An extent of Ac. 6.09 cents of land in Survey Nos.167/3 and 170/1 of Balaramunipet of Machilipatnam Town was notified for acquisition by the respondents, through a notification under Section 4 (1) and a declaration under Sections 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act) issued on 25-05-1992 and 04-10-1992 respectively. Notices under Section 9 (1) and 9(3) of the Act were also issued. The petitioner contends that the respondents did not pass any award, in respect of the acquired land, and by operation of Section 11-A of the Act, the entire proceedings have lapsed. Accordingly, it seeks a Writ of Mandamus, in the form of a direction, to the respondents to issue a fresh notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, with reference to the said land. 2. On behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit is filed. The fact that notifications under Sections 4 (1) and 6 of the Act have been issued, in respect of the land of the petitioner, is not disputed. it is stated that the possession of the said land was taken and that it was distributed among the beneficiaries. Respondents state that the further proceedings under the Act could not be taken, on account of the fact that the Government issued a notification under the Andhra Pradesh Slum improvement (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1956 (for short the Slum Improvement Act’). According to them, when the same land is the subject matter of two notifications, under two enactments, it would be impermissible for them, to pass any award, much less to issue a fresh notification, by operation of Section 11-A of the Act. 3. Sri P. R. Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the land is vested in the Government, on taking possession, it is not at all open to the respondents to deny to the petitioner, the benefit under the Act, be it, in the matter of giving effect to Section 11-A of the Act, or passing the award. He contends that the respondents cannot deny the benefit of the land as well as its compensation to the petitioners. 4. He contends that the respondents cannot deny the benefit of the land as well as its compensation to the petitioners. 4. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, on the other hand, submits that though the said land was acquired, through the relevant notifications under the Act and vested in the Government, further proceedings could not be taken, on account of the fact that a notification came to be issued under the Slum Improvement Act. He further contends that once the possession of the land is taken, Section 11-A of the Act does not have any application. He places reliance upon certain Judgments rendered by the Supreme Court and this Court. 5. It is matter of record that the land of the petitioner was acquired by invoking the provisions of the Act. All the steps under the said Act, except to the extent of passing award, have been taken. It was at about that stage, that a notification is said to have been issued under the Slum Improvement Act. 6. It is true that if an award is not passed within two years from the date of declaration under Section 6 of the Act, the entire proceedings lapse. Section 11-A of the Act is very clear on this aspect. However, different consequences follow, if possession of the land sought to be acquired was taken. In Jaladi Sita Rama Koteswara Rao v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh1, this Court held that once the possession of the land is taken under the Act, the consequences provided for under Section 11-A of the Act do not ensue. Therefore, the request of the petitioner, for issuance of a fresh notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, cannot be acceded to. 7. This, however, does not conclude the controversy, Having acquired the land, by invoking the provisions of the Act, the respondents cannot avoid their obligations to pass an award. The fact that the notification was issued under the Slum Improvement Act, at a later point of time, hardly makes any difference. The reason is that once the land is vested in the Government under the Act, it is not available to be dealt with under any other enactments. Things would have been different altogether, had the notification under the Slum Improvement Act been published, before the possession of the land was taken under the Act. The reason is that once the land is vested in the Government under the Act, it is not available to be dealt with under any other enactments. Things would have been different altogether, had the notification under the Slum Improvement Act been published, before the possession of the land was taken under the Act. Once the land vested in the Government consequent upon the relevant notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Act and taking of possession, it was not at all competent for the authority under the Slum Improvement Act to issue notification for the very land. Therefore, notwithstanding the issuance of a notification under the Slum improvement Act, the respondents are under obligation to pass an award under the Act. Nearly 14 years have elapsed, so far. The petitioner has already been put to severe hardship. 8. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed, directing that the respondents shall pass award under Section 11-A of the Act, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.