Judgment : PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY, J. (1) THE subject-matter of challenge in the instant writ application is the land acquisition proceeding being L. A. Case no. 4/80 of 1998-99 for the purpose of acquisition of two plots of agricultural land altogether measuring 20 cottahs 8 chittaks. Both the plots formed part of r. S. Dag No. 2885. R. S. Khatian No. 712, Mouza: Hariara, P. S. Rajarhat, district- 24 Parganas (North). (2) IT appears from the writ petition that the petitioners purchased the two plots on 14. 03. 1996 and had their names mutated in the revenue records of the government of West Bengal in the month of February, 2000 and paid rent and/ or revenue for the said two plots. In the said writ petition it has also been mentioned that the petitioners herein with a view to develop the aforesaid two plots approached the UCO Bank for financial accommodation and the said proposal was processed by the bank upon conducting necessary enquiries through its own learned Advocate. (3) THE petitioners have alleged that on or about 26th March, 2004 a report dated 25th March, 2004 prepared by the learned Advocate of the bank was received by them wherefrom it transpired that the said two plots were affected by the acquisition made by the State of West Bengal for the New Town Project. According to the petitioners, the said report also disclosed that the said petitioners were not entitled to deal with the plots unless the same were exempted like various other plots exempted by the Government pursuant to the notification Nos. 3044 dated 06. 12. 1996 and 1450 dated 27. 05. 1999 issued by the Finance Tax Department of the Government of West Bengal. (4) THE petitioners also alleged that in April, 2004 a copy of the relevant declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was received by them. Sometime in the month of September, 2004, the petitioners moved the writ application being W. P. No. 16472 (W) of 2004, inter alia, challenging the aforementioned declaration. In the said writ application different orders were passed from time to time. Sometime in the month of September, 2004, the petitioners moved the writ application being W. P. No. 16472 (W) of 2004, inter alia, challenging the aforementioned declaration. In the said writ application different orders were passed from time to time. (5) ON 6th October, 2004 an order was passed by Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta recording that in spite of mutation of petitioners name on 17th April, 2000, an award has been passed in the month of October, 2002 and one Sri Ashok Kumar saha was shown to have received the compensation. In the said order learned judge also recorded prima facie finding to the effect that the petitioners land was sought to be taken without due recourse to law. (6) ON 15th October, 2004 another order was passed by Sengupta, J. in the said writ petition to the following effect: ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I think a change may be taken for resolving the matter through the mechanism of Lok Adalat constituted by the High Court Legal Services committee. Therefore, A. C. O. of this Court is directed to send this matter to the Member-Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, who will place the matter before the learned Lok Adalat Judges. " (7) ON 18th February, 2005, learned 27th Lok Adalat was pleased to pass an order and the operative part of the said order is set out hereunder: ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . Accordingly, we dispose of this writ petition as suggested and agreed by both sides that notwithstanding the award already made there will be a fresh opportunity to be given to the writ petitioners for a hearing within the scope of section 9 of the Act and a fresh award be made and possession can be taken after passing such award according to law. At the same time, it is brought to our notice that several prayers are made for exemption of plots in question. Prayer for consideration as to exemption was made from the acquisition and those have been considered. A similar prayer is being made before us. Let the petitioner make a representation for exemption without prejudice, and the same can be considered and disposed of within three months from the date of filing. Prayer for consideration as to exemption was made from the acquisition and those have been considered. A similar prayer is being made before us. Let the petitioner make a representation for exemption without prejudice, and the same can be considered and disposed of within three months from the date of filing. We made it clear that as to merit of the representation, we have not considered at all with such observation, the matter is disposed. " (8) PURSUANT to the liberty granted by the aforesaid order of the Lok Adalat, petitioners herein submitted a representation on 5th May, 2005 praying for granting exemption from acquisition and/or withdrawal from acquisition, inter alia, on the grounds that the purpose of acquisition has been achieved without the utilisation of the plots in question and furthermore, similar plots have been released from acquisition by Government notifications mentioned in the representation. It has also been urged on behalf of the petitioners that they are entitled to know the tests and/or criteria adopted by the respondent authorities in connection with the aforesaid exemption and/or exclusion. It has been disclosed in the afflidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents in connection with the said writ petition that the Housing Board by the Memo dated 22nd february, 2006 communicated the decision that the land in question cannot be released. It has been specifically urged on behalf of the petitioners that the acquisition proceeding in respect of the land in question belonging to the petitioners has lapsed in view of the operation of the statute. (9) IN paragraph 5 (a) of the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 in relation to the writ petition, certain relevant facts in connection with the land acquisition proceedings have been disclosed, which are chronologically mentioned hereunder: 27. 11. 2001 Section 4 notification was issued. 14. 12. 2001 The same was published in the Calcutta Gazette. 21. 01. 2002 Declaration made. 14. 02. 2002 Declaration published in the Official Gazette. 12. 08. 2002 Schedule verification made. 10. 10. 2002 Award was declared. 29. 10. 2002 Compensation was paid. 01. 11. 002 Possession allegedly handed over to the requiring body. 2001 Section 4 notification was issued. 14. 12. 2001 The same was published in the Calcutta Gazette. 21. 01. 2002 Declaration made. 14. 02. 2002 Declaration published in the Official Gazette. 12. 08. 2002 Schedule verification made. 10. 10. 2002 Award was declared. 29. 10. 2002 Compensation was paid. 01. 11. 002 Possession allegedly handed over to the requiring body. (10) THE respondent authorities categorically mentioned in the aforesaid affidavit-in-opposition that the order dated 18th February, 2005 passed by the 27th Lok Adalat is binding on the parties as a decree and specific averments made in this regard by the respondents in paragraph 17 of the affidavit-in-opposition is also quoted hereunder: "17. I deny the allegation contained in para 29f of the said petition and say that the order dated 18. 02. 05 passed by the 27th Lok Adalat is a conclusive one terminating the controversy between the parties and it is binding on them as a decree. The respondents have accepted the said order, as they are bound to, and complied with their obligation as directed by the Honble court. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " (11) IN this connection, the provision of section 21 of the Legal Services authorities Act, 1987 is quoted hereunder: "21. Award to Lok Adalat.- (1) Every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court or order of any other Court or Tribunal and where a compromise or settlement has been arrived at, by a Lok Adalat in a suit or proceeding transferred to it under sub-section (1) of section 20, the Court-fee paid in such suit or proceeding shall be refunded in the manner provided under the Court-fees Act, 1870. (2) Every award made by a Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute, and no appeal shall lie to any Court against the award. " (12) IT has been specifically urged on behalf of the petitioners that the proceeding for the acquisition of the land in question of the petitioners should be deemed to have lapsed in view of the specific provision of section HA of the land Acquisition Act, 1894. " (12) IT has been specifically urged on behalf of the petitioners that the proceeding for the acquisition of the land in question of the petitioners should be deemed to have lapsed in view of the specific provision of section HA of the land Acquisition Act, 1894. Petitioners herein have submitted in paragraph 29 (1) of the writ petition that the proceeding for assessment and award of compensation, so far as the petitioners are concerned, commenced in the L. A. Office only in the month of May, 2005 and at that stage there was no question of making an award in view of section 11a of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 since the proceeding for acquisition of the petitioners plot must be deemed to have lapsed due to the expiry of the prescribed period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration. (13) SECTION lla of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is also quoted hereunder: "ha. 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. " (14) THE respondents, however, did not claim the benefit of the aforesaid "explanation" as there was no order of any Court staying any action or proceeding of the concerned authority which was required to be taken in pursuance of the declaration. In view of the order of the 27th Lok Adalat not only a fresh award should be made but also possession can be taken after passing such award according to law. (15) UNDISPUTEDLY, the declaration was made on 21st January, 2002 and the same was published in the Official Gazette on 14th February, 2002. Therefore, the period of two years from the date of declaration expired on or before 14th february, 2004. (15) UNDISPUTEDLY, the declaration was made on 21st January, 2002 and the same was published in the Official Gazette on 14th February, 2002. Therefore, the period of two years from the date of declaration expired on or before 14th february, 2004. (16) REFERRING to the aforesaid undisputed position Mr. Mukherjee, learned senior Counsel of the petitioners submits that no award can be passed in the present case after 14th February, 2004 pursuant to the aforesaid declaration dated 21th January, 2002 which was published in the Official Gazette on 14th february, 2002 in view of specific provision of section HA of the Land acquisition Act, 1894. Mr. Mukherjee also submits that any award passed by the concerned authority in the present case after 14th February, 2004 cannot be regarded as an award according to law and, therefore, the possession of the land in question of the petitioners cannot be taken pursuant to such award as the 27th Lok Adalat in the order dated 18th February, 2005 specifically issued direction for taking possession "after passing of such award according to law". (17) MR. A. N. Banerjee, learned Counsel representing the State-respondents opposed the prayers made in the writ petition only on the ground that the award made by the permanent Lok Adalat shall be final and cannot be called in question as sought to have been done in the present writ petition. Mr. Banerjee specifically urged that this Honble Court in its Constitutional writ jurisdiction should not interfere with the award of Lok Adalat as the same should be deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court in terms of section 21 of the legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Referring to sub-section (2) of section 21 of the said Act, Mr. Banerjee submits that every award made by a Lok Adalat shall be final and binding upon all the parties to the dispute. (18) I fail to understand how the aforesaid argument can be of any help to the respondent authorities herein. (19) THE learned Senior Counsel of the petitioners herein also specifically urged before this Court that the respondents herein must act in terms of the award passed by the 27th Lok Adalat on 18th February, 2005 wherein it has been specifically mentioned that a fresh award has to be made and possession can be taken only after passing such award according to law. 20) REFERRING to the award passed by the 27th Lok Adalat on 18th February, 2005, Mr. Sakti Nath Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel of the petitioners submitted before this Court that the provision for taking possession pursuant to the order of the 27th Lok Adalat after passing the award according to law makes it clear that the possession of the land was never taken earlier and the same can only be taken after passing of the fresh award according to law in compliance with the aforesaid order passed by the 27th Lok Adalat. Mr. Mukherjee all through relied on the aforesaid award passed by the 27th Lok adalat and prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities to act strictly in terms of the said award passed by the Lok Adalat. (21) THE learned Counsel of the State-respondents has rightly submitted that the aforesaid award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil Court and this Court in its Constitutional writ jurisdiction should not interfere with the same. (22) THE petitioners herein did not pray for any variation and/or modification of the award passed by the 27th Lok Adalat nor I am going to interfere with the said award passed by the said Lok Adalat in the present proceeding. As a matter of fact, the petitioners herein claimed reliefs on the basis of the award passed by the 27th Lok Adalat. (23) MR. Banerjee, learned Counsel of the State-respondents submitted before this Court that the provision of section 11a of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is directory and not mandatory in nature and the petitioners herein have waived their right under section lla upon accepting the forum of Lok Adalat. The aforesaid submission made by the learned Counsel of the State-respondents is erroneous since the Honble Supreme Court in a recent judgment in the case of mohan and Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. , reported in 2007 (1) CLJ 319 (SC), specifically held that the said provision is mandatory. Furthermore, the petitioners have neither waived their right under section 11a of the Land acquisition Act, 1894 upon accepting the forum of Lok Adalat nor the same can be waived by implication. (24) REFERRING to a decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of awadh Bihari Yadav vs. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1996 SC 122 (paragraph 9), Mr. (24) REFERRING to a decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of awadh Bihari Yadav vs. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1996 SC 122 (paragraph 9), Mr. Banerjee submits that even a defective award which has complied with the directions of the Court and the provisions of law will not invite "the Wrath" of section lla of the Act. The relevant portion of paragraph 9 of the aforesaid judgment is set out hereunder: "9. We are also of the view that the proceedings dated 31. 7. 1984 (appearing at pages 82 to 84 of Paper Book, Vol. I and at pages 203 to 206 of Paper book, Vol. II), is in substance an award as contemplated by section 12 of the act. It is signed by the District Land Acquisition Officer (Collector) under the Act, though the signature appears to be illegible. After perusing the aforesaid proceedings dated 31. 7. 1984, the High Court observed that the state is bound by the directions given by the Court earlier in CWJC No. 3142/82, that in the light of the aforesaid order of the High Court, proceedings dated 31. 7. 1984 was passed, that all requisites of an award are mentioned in the said order, and since there is substantial compliance, it should be treated as an award. The High Court was also of the view that even a defective award which has complied with the directions of the Court and the provisions of law will not invite the Wrath of section lla of the act. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " (25) I fail to understand how the aforesaid decision can be of any help to the state-respondents since in the present case award has not been passed by the concerned respondent in compliance with the directions of the Court and provisions of the law, which was done in the case of Awadh Bihari Yadav (Supra). (26) IN view of the award dated 18th February, 2005 passed by the 27th Lok adalat, a fresh award has to be made and possession can be taken only after passing such award according to law. (26) IN view of the award dated 18th February, 2005 passed by the 27th Lok adalat, a fresh award has to be made and possession can be taken only after passing such award according to law. (27) IN the instant case, there is really no question of quashing the L. A. proceeding which had already ceased to exist in view of section 11a of the Land acquisition Act, 1894. The continuance of the proceeding even after its lapsing was an exercise in futility and cannot even be claimed to be permitted by the order of the 27th Lok Adalat. The 27th Lok Adalat permitted the respondents to proceed in the matter of making a fresh award and taking of possession only after passing such award in accordance with law and not in violation thereof. (28) THE effect of expiry of two years since the date of declaration has been dealt with by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Nahar Singh vs. State of U. P. and Ors. , reported in 1996 (1) SCC 434 , as hereunder: "3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . After the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 was brought into force w. e. f. 24. 9. 1984, section lla operates in the field. It envisages that if the award under section 11 has not been made within two years from the date of coming into force of the Amendment Act, all the proceedings under sections 4 and 6 shall stand lapsed. In view of the fact that no steps appeared to have been taken within time, the notification under section 4 (1) and declaration under section 6 no longer subsist. " (29) THE aforesaid issue has also been considered and finally settled in the recent judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Mohan and Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (supra). The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is set out hereunder: "7. In our opinion the submission of learned Counsel for the appellant is clearly correct in view of the clear provision of section 11a of the Act. In view of section 11a an award has to be made within two years from the date of publication of the declaration under section 6. In our opinion the submission of learned Counsel for the appellant is clearly correct in view of the clear provision of section 11a of the Act. In view of section 11a an award has to be made within two years from the date of publication of the declaration under section 6. Failure to adhere to this time-frame is fatal to the award, as the provision is mandatory. " (30) MR. A. N. Banerjee, learned Counsel of the State-respondents submitted before this Court that the award made by the 27th Lok Adalat can be executed through a Civil Court and, therefore, if the petitioners are reluctant to perform their obligation then the respondents will have remedy in Civil Court for redressal, I am unable to follow the aforesaid submission of the learned Counsel of the respondents as I find that the petitioners herein did not fail to perform their obligations in terms of the award made by the 27th Lok Adalat. (31) FOR the reasons discussed hereinabove, I am of the opinion that the petitioners herein are entitled to succeed and, therefore, I hold that the land acquisition proceeding being L. A. Case No. 4/80 of 1998-99 initiated for acquiring the plots of land belonging to the petitioner No. 1 stood lapsed since no award has been made within two years from the date of publication of the declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. (32) THE respondents herein are also restrained from taking any step or further steps and/or taking any action or further action in respect of the plots of land belonging to the petitioner No. 1 on the basis of the Land Acquisition proceeding being L. A. Case No. 4/80 of 1998-99 and further restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioners in respect of the said plots in question on the basis of the said proceeding. (33) THIS writ petition thus stands allowed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.