MOHIT S. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) IN these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners challenge the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the petitioners' lands and pray for a declaration that the acquisition proceedings lapsed by virtue of the provisions of Section 11a of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on account of the failure on the part of the respondents in not making the award in respect of the petitioners' lands within a period of two years from the last publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, even after exclusion of the period during which Special Civil Application No. 5589 of 1986 and connected petitions remained pending before this Court. ( 2 ) THE facts leading to filing of these petitions, shortly stated, are as under :- 2. 1 The Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC) acquired the lands of the petitioners and others for the purpose of establishing an industrial estate in villages Sarangpur, Jitali and Dadhal of Taluka Ankleshwar in Bharuch District. For that purpose GIDC entered into an agreement with the petitioners on 25. 04. 1980 under which GIDC took over possession of the lands in question on 25. 4. 1980 itself, pending the commencement and completion of the acquisition proceedings under the Act and subject to payment of the price at the rate of Rs. 27,180/- per Hectare (including solatium ). Although the agreement itself did not indicate that the amount of compensation at the aforesaid rate was being paid, there is no dispute about the fact that 85% of the amount was paid by GIDC to the petitioners in 1980-1981. The agreement did, however, provide for payment of interest at the rate of 4% per annum on the amount remaining unpaid till completion of the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. 2. 2 There is no dispute about the fact that subsequently the State Government issued notification dated 07. 09. 1983 under Section 4 of the Act and the same was published at the site on 08. 09. 1983. The notification under Section 6 was issued on 12. 08. 1985. According to the petitioners, the publication of Section 6 notification in the newspapers was made on 28/30. 08. 1985 and publication at the site was made on 06. 09. 1985. 1983 under Section 4 of the Act and the same was published at the site on 08. 09. 1983. The notification under Section 6 was issued on 12. 08. 1985. According to the petitioners, the publication of Section 6 notification in the newspapers was made on 28/30. 08. 1985 and publication at the site was made on 06. 09. 1985. According to the respondents, however, the date of last publication of the declaration under Section 6 was 06. 11. 1985. The petitioners' lands were also covered by the aforesaid notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act. 2. 3 The petitioners challenged the above notifications by filing Special Civil Application No. 5589 of 1986. In the said petition, initially ad-interim stay was granted on 20. 10. 1986 and thereafter in Civil Application No. 1409 of 1987 filed by the Officer of Special Duty (Land Acquisition No. 1), Ahmedabad City and another, the following order was passed on 08. 09. 1987 :-"by consent of learned advocates Mr Mehta, Mr Karia and Mr Desai, interim stay against the declaration of award under Section 11 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. "2. 4 During pendency of the said petition, the Land Acquisition Officer made award dated 02. 11. 1987 in respect of only those lands for which no consent was given by the parties. It was specifically indicated in the said award that the lands whose owners had gone to the High Court and who had backed out of the consent agreement were not included. It was also further specifically stated in the award that the award was only in respect of those lands for which regular award was to be made. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value of the lands for the purpose of payment of compensation as on 08. 09. 1983 as under :- Village Market value Per Hectare (Rs.) (Rs.) Per Are (Rs.) Per Sq. mtr. Sarangpur 40,000 400 4. 00 Jitali 35,000 350 3. 50 It also appears that the landholders, who were offered compensation at the above rate, made applications under Section 18 of the Act and in the Land Acquisition References made pursuant to those applications, the Court of the learned 5th Additional Senior Civil Judge at Bharuch has recently rendered judgment and award dated 15. 05. 2009 awarding compensation at the rate of additional market value of Rs. 05. 2009 awarding compensation at the rate of additional market value of Rs. 706/- per Are i. e. additional market value of Rs. 70,600/- per Hectare, with additional increase under Section 23 (1a) and solatium at the rate of 30% under Section 23 (2) and interest under Section 28 of the Act. 2. 5 Reverting back to Special Civil Application No. 5589 of 1986 and connected matters filed by the present petitioners, the group of petitions reached hearing before a Division Bench of this Court and by judgment dated 09/10. 07. 1996, the Court dismissed those petitions. The challenge in the said petitions was that the so-called agreements dated 25. 04. 1980, which the petitioners were persuaded to enter into, were not agreements in the eye of law as the petitioners' signatures were obtained by misrepresentation; that the petitioners were ignorant agriculturists; that they were threatened that if possession of the lands was not parted with in favour of GIDC, possession would be taken without payment of advance amount. It was also contended that the petitioners were required to be paid compensation at the market value prevailing on the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act and, therefore, it was the bounden duty of the Special Land Acquisition Officer to redetermine the price as on the date of the notification under Section 4. The petitioners also challenged the decision of the Special Land Acquisition Officer rejecting their applications for making reference under Section 18 of the Act on the ground that there were consent agreements. According to the petitioners, they were required to be paid compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,25,000/- to Rs. 2,50,000/- per Hectare. 2. 6 After hearing the learned advocates for the parties, this Court did not accept any of the above contentions and held that the petitioners' case was nothing but an after thought and that the petitioners had not protested at the time when they executed the documents or took the money and handed over possession to GIDC. The Court also held that since the petitioners had given consent at the time of handing over possession and the consent agreements also indicated the price at which the lands were being acquired, the petitioners had no right to make any application for reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Court, therefore, dismissed the petitions and vacated the interim relief. 2. The Court, therefore, dismissed the petitions and vacated the interim relief. 2. 7 It is necessary to note at this stage that while the above judgment contained an observation that the Special Land Acquisition Officer declared the award only in respect of the persons who did not execute any consent agreement and a separate procedure was followed by the Land Acquisition Officer for the others, the judgment proceeded on the basis as if the Land Acquisition Officer had made an award in respect of the petitioners' lands also, but the petitioners did not produce the award made by the Land Acquisition Officer and even the respondents did not care to produce the same. The penultimate para of the judgment i. e. para 23 contained the following observations :-"23. Petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 5589 of 1986 have not produced the award made by the Land Acquisition Officer. Even respondents have not cared to produce the same. However, it was made clear that award is made. Thus, in view of what is stated, after considering various aspects, it is not possible to interfere in these matters. "however, it is an admitted position that no such award was made in respect of the petitioners' lands i. e. lands for which consent agreements were executed on 25. 04. 1980. ( 3 ) AFTER dismissal of the above petitions on 10. 07. 1996, the petitioners filed the present petitions on 26. 03. 1998 challenging the land acquisition proceedings on the ground that no award under Section 11 of the Act was made within a period two years from the date of last publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. ( 4 ) AFFIDAVIT in reply dated 06. 08. 1998 came to be filed by Mr RN Ninama, Officer on Special Duty and Acquisition, GIDC, Ahmedabad Unit No. 1, stating that possession of the petitioners' lands was taken over by GIDC through private negotiations on 21. 05. 1980 after paying the petitioners 85% of the amount on 21. 07. 1981. Reference is made to the petitions filed by the petitioners earlier and the stay granted by this Court on 20. 10. 1986. In para 4 of the said affidavit, it is specifically stated that the petitioners of the present petitions are the persons whose lands were acquired, but the award was not published. 07. 1981. Reference is made to the petitions filed by the petitioners earlier and the stay granted by this Court on 20. 10. 1986. In para 4 of the said affidavit, it is specifically stated that the petitioners of the present petitions are the persons whose lands were acquired, but the award was not published. It is further stated that the judgment of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 5589 of 1986 was pronounced on the footing that the award for all the lands acquired was published, but by mistake the award was not published for the petitioners' lands. It is further stated that Section 6 notification was last published on 06. 11. 1985. Hence, the two year period was to be over by 05. 11. 1987, but before that date the petitioners moved this Court on 20. 10. 1986 GIDC came to know about the judgment of this Court on 09. 01. 1998. Thereafter the Land Acquisition Officer received the cheques from GIDC on 12. 03. 1998 and 19. 03. 1998 and the vouchers in respect of the payments were prepared on 23. 03. 1998 and the intimations were given to the petitioners for pronouncement of the award and for taking the balance compensation amounts on 31. 03. 1998. However, on 06. 04. 1998, the Regional Manager, GIDC, Ankleshwar informed the authority that the landholders were not agreeable to accept the intimations and the compensation amounts and they had moved this Court. GIDC has, therefore, prayed that the petitions be dismissed as time consumed after publication of Section 6 notification was on account of filing of the writ petitions by the petitioners before this Court. ( 5 ) AFFIDAVIT in reply dated 25. 09. 1998 is also filed by Mr VA Yadav, Assistant Manager of GIDC, Ankleshwar stating that the possession of the petitioners' lands was taken over in 1980 and 85% of the advance compensation was also paid to the petitioners at the time of taking over the possession. It is further stated that the remaining 15% of the compensation was not paid as the award was required to be made, but the award was still not made. GIDC has also blamed the petitioners for the delay in making the awards as the petitioners had filed writ petitions before this Court and had obtained stay. It is further stated that the remaining 15% of the compensation was not paid as the award was required to be made, but the award was still not made. GIDC has also blamed the petitioners for the delay in making the awards as the petitioners had filed writ petitions before this Court and had obtained stay. It is further stated in the above affidavit as under :- "the land was obtained way back in 1980 and thereafter industrial estate running into several acres of land has been developed and this land is also covered under the said development of the industrial estate. Therefore, in no circumstances, it is pragmatic or remotely possible to return the land of the petitioners. " ( 6 ) AT the hearing of these petitions, Mr MI Merchant, learned advocate for the petitioners has raised the following contentions :- 6. 1 For whatever length of period, the previous petitions had remained pending before this Court or stay was operating against making of the award, even after excluding the said period, the respondents did not make the award within two years from the date of last publication of Section 6 notification, which was 06. 11. 1985 even as per the case of the respondents themselves. The interim stay was operating from 20. 10. 1986 till 10. 07. 1996 and, therefore, excluding the said period the award was required to be made by 27. 07. 1997. However, in the instant case, the award was declared only on 26. 11. 1998 and, therefore, the acquisition proceedings are vitiated by virtue of the provisions of Section 11a of the Act. 6. 2 In any view of the matter, even according to the respondents, as indicated in the letter dated 27. 11. 1997, the General Manager (Lands), GIDC, Gandhinagar had informed the Special Land Acquisition Officer that the High Court had disposed of the writ petitions filed in the year 1986 by common judgment dated 10. 07. 1996 and that the same was forwarded by the Law Officer of GIDC to the Special Land Acquisition Officer alongwith his letter dated 28. 11. 1996 and that complications were likely to arise if the award was not declared within the time limit stipulated in the Act. 07. 1996 and that the same was forwarded by the Law Officer of GIDC to the Special Land Acquisition Officer alongwith his letter dated 28. 11. 1996 and that complications were likely to arise if the award was not declared within the time limit stipulated in the Act. Mr Merchant has submitted, on the basis of the above letter, that the respondents were very much aware about the disposal of the writ petitions in the year 1996, the fact that a copy of the judgment was forwarded to the Special Land Acquisition Officer and also that the respondents were aware of the legal consequences of not declaring the award within two years from the date of last publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. 6. 3 In view of the above facts and the legal provisions, the petitioners are entitled to a declaration that the land acquisition proceedings lapsed and the petitioners are entitled to get back their lands. 6. 4 In the alternative, Mr Merchant has submitted that if, for any reason, the respondents are not ready to return possession of the lands to the petitioners, the petitioners are entitled to get compensation at the same rate which the other landholders are to be paid as per the judgment and awards dated 15. 05. 2009 in Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 488 of 1998 and connected cases as all the lands i. e. the lands covered by the said judgment dated 15. 05. 2009 and the petitioners' lands were covered by the same notification under Sections 4 and also the same notification under Section 6 of the Act. ( 7 ) ON the other hand, Mr Nikunt Raval, learned AGP for respondent No. 1 - Officer on Special Duty, Land Acquisition and respondent No. 2 - State of Gujarat and Mr MB Gandhi, learned advocate for respondent No. 3 - GIDC have opposed the petitions and made the following submissions :- 7. 1 The question of acquisition proceedings lapsing cannot arise in a case where the parties had given consent for handing over possession of the lands and also for the rate of compensation, which was determined with their consent, as indicated in the consent agreements executed as far back as in the year 1980. It is submitted that the petitioners are, therefore, estopped from challenging the acquisition or from claiming any higher compensation. 7. It is submitted that the petitioners are, therefore, estopped from challenging the acquisition or from claiming any higher compensation. 7. 2 In any view of the matter the petitioners had challenged the acquisition proceedings in the group of petitions filed in the year 1986 and the entire group of petitions was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 9/10. 07. 1996 wherein this Court held that the petitioners had entered into agreements with open eyes and that the agreements were binding on them and that the petitioners were not entitled to make any application for reference under Section 18 of the Act. 7. 3 Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Yusufbhai Noormohmed Nendoliya vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1991 SC 2153 in support of the contention that in order to get the benefit of Section 11a, what is required is that the land holder who seeks the benefit must not have obtained any order from a Court restraining any action or proceeding in pursuance of the declaration under Section 6 so that the Explanation covers only the cases of those landholders who do not obtain any order from a Court which would delay or prevent the making of the award. ( 8 ) HAVING heard the learned advocates for the parties, we find that the petitioners' lands were covered by the notification under Section 4 which was published on 07. 09. 1983 and also by the notification under Section 6 for which the last date of publication was 06. 11. 1985. The two year period would otherwise have expired on 06. 11. 1987, but in the meantime, the petitioners filed several writ petitions in the year 1986 challenging the acquisition proceedings and the petitioners also obtained stay on 20. 10. 1986 against passing of the awards under Section 11 (2) of the Act. Hence, the two year period stopped running from 20. 10. 1986, but even before that date a substantial period of 11 months and 13 days had already run and, therefore, when the above group of petitions came to be dismissed on 10. 07. 1996, the balance part of the two year period expired on 27. 07. 1997. Admittedly, the award was not made on or before 27. 07. 10. 1986, but even before that date a substantial period of 11 months and 13 days had already run and, therefore, when the above group of petitions came to be dismissed on 10. 07. 1996, the balance part of the two year period expired on 27. 07. 1997. Admittedly, the award was not made on or before 27. 07. 1997 and for the first time the award in respect of the petitioners' lands came to be declared under Section 11 (2) on 26. 11. 1998. ( 9 ) THE learned advocates for the respondents have, however, vehemently urged that in the first place, the petitioners had executed the consent agreements in the year 1980 when they accepted 85% of the compensation amount without any protest and also handed over the possession without any protest and thereafter the balance 15% amount of compensation was also accepted at the time of declaration of the award dated 26. 11. 1998 without any protest and, therefore also, the petitioners are estopped from making any grievance. ( 10 ) IT is required to be noted that after filing of the present petitions, when the matters were heard on 17. 09. 1998, this Court passed the following order in each of these petitions :-"on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is ordered that those claimants who may not have received 85% amount of the compensation may now receive the entire compensation now and those who have already received 85% of the amount of compensation, may receive the rest of the 15%. The petitioners may approach the concerned authorities with this order for disbursement of the amount, if any, in accordance with law. This order is passed without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners in this Special Civil Application. " it is thus clear that in so far as acceptance of 15% amount is concerned, this Court had specifically provided in the above order that receipt of 15% amount by the petitioners will be without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners in these Special Civil Applications. " it is thus clear that in so far as acceptance of 15% amount is concerned, this Court had specifically provided in the above order that receipt of 15% amount by the petitioners will be without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners in these Special Civil Applications. ( 11 ) SO far as the receipt of the 85% amount way back in the year 1980-1981 is concerned, at that stage the question whether a declaration could be sought about lapsing of the acquisition proceedings under Section 11a of the Act on account of the award not being declared within two years from the date of last publication of Section 6 declaration did not or could not arise at all, because interim stay was granted by this Court at the joint request of the parties against any award being made. ( 12 ) SIMILARLY, the decision of another Division Bench of this Court rendered on 9/10. 7. 1996 dismissing the petitions filed in the year 1986 cannot come in the way of the petitioners agitating their rights in the present petitions, because no award in respect of the petitioners' lands was made by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11 (2) of the Act or under any other provision. It is true that the judgment dated 9/10. 07. 1996 did refer to an award having been made in respect of the petitioners' lands as well, but as is made clear in the affidavits filed on behalf of both the respondent authorities, no award was ever made in respect of the petitioners' lands and the award made on 02. 11. 1987 was only in respect of the lands where the landholders had not given any consent for acquisition of their lands. In view of the above aspects, it is not possible to accept the submission made by the learned AGP for the State authorities and Mr Gandhi for GIDC that the petitioners are estopped from contending that the acquisition proceedings lapsed by virtue of the provisions of Section 11a of the Act. ( 13 ) AS the facts on record indicate, the respondents were required to declare the award by 27. 07. 1997. Admittedly, no award was made in respect of the petitioners' lands till that date or even till filing of the present petitions in April, 1998. ( 13 ) AS the facts on record indicate, the respondents were required to declare the award by 27. 07. 1997. Admittedly, no award was made in respect of the petitioners' lands till that date or even till filing of the present petitions in April, 1998. ( 14 ) IN view of the above factual finding, Mr Gandhi for the respondents has next contended that the bar imposed by Section 11a would not apply in case of acquisition proceedings initiated with consent of the landholders. ( 15 ) IT is not possible to accept this contention because Section 11a does not make any such distinction between acquisition proceedings initiated with consent of the parties or without consent of the parties. Sections 11 and 11a read as under :- "11. Enquiry and award by Collector,- (1) On the day so fixed, or any other day to which the enquiry has been adjourned, the Collector shall proceed to enquire into the objections (if any) which any person interested has stated pursuant to a notice given under section 9 to the measurements made under section 8, and into the value of the land and at the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section (1), and into the respective interests of the persons claiming the compensation, and shall make an award under his hand of - (i) the true area of the land; (ii) the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land; and (iii) the apportionment of the said compensation amongst. . . . . . . . . . . (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), if at any stage of the proceedings, the Collector is satisfied that all the persons interested in the land who appeared before him have agreed in writing on the matters to be included in the award of the Collector in the form prescribed by rules made by the appropriate Government, he may, without making further enquiry, make an award according to the terms of such agreement. (3) The determination of compensation for any land under sub-section (2) shall not, in any way affect the determination of compensation in respect of other lands in the same locality or elsewhere in accordance with the other provisions of this Act. (4 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11a. Period within which an award shall be made,- (1) 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 (68 of 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. " [emphasis supplied] ( 16 ) SECTION 11a thus refers to the making of an award under Section 11 within the specified period of two years without making any distinction between the awards made under sub-section (1) or consent awards made under sub-section (2) of Section 11. The Legislature, while inserting Section 11a in the Act, did not confine the operation of Section 11a to the awards under sub-section (1) of Section 11 and, therefore, in view of the above legislative intent as manifest from the clear provisions of Section 11a, it is not possible to hold that the operation of Section 11a is confined only to cases where the award is to be made under sub-section (1) of Section 11. ( 17 ) AS regards reliance placed by Mr Gandhi for GIDC on the decision of the Apex Court in Yusufbhai Noormohmed Nendoliya vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1991 SC 2153 , the wide observations in para 8 of the judgment are required to be understood in the context of the controversy before the Court. In that case, the publication of Section 6 notification took place in June 1988. The landholder challenged the notification by filing a writ petition in this Court. In that case, the publication of Section 6 notification took place in June 1988. The landholder challenged the notification by filing a writ petition in this Court. On the prayer for interim relief made by the appellant - landholder for stay of operation and implementation of the said notification, this Court granted only a limited interim relief by restraining the State Government from taking over possession of the appellant's lands pending admission of the petition. The said interim relief granted on 09. 08. 1988 continued till the Apex Court rendered the decision on 17. 09. 1991. In the meantime, the Land Acquisition Officer issued notice under Section 9 (1) and proceeded to determine the compensation after hearing the objections. In the said inquiry, the appellant took up a contention that as two years had elapsed after the publication of Section 6 notification and no award had been made, all the acquisition proceedings lapsed. The contention was negatived by the Land Acquisition authorities, as well as by this Court after holding that Section 11a enjoins exclusion of the entire period during which any action or proceedings to be taken pursuant to a declaration under Section 6 is stayed by an order of a competent Court. This Court took the view that the Explanation to Section 11a is not confined to the staying of making of the award pursuant to Section 6 notification, but it is widely worded and covers in its sweep the entire period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of Section 6 declaration is stayed by a competent Court. It was the correctness of the said decision which was assailed before the Apex Court and the Apex Court held that this Court was right in taking the said view. Seen in this perspective, it is clear that the observations in para 8 of the judgment cannot be taken to mean, as is sought to be contended on behalf of the respondents, that the landholder who obtains an order from the Court restraining any action or proceeding in pursuance of the declaration under Section 6 is estopped from invoking the benefit of Section 11a even after the stay is vacated and the petition challenging the acquisition proceedings is dismissed. ( 18 ) IN view of the above discussion, ordinarily this Court would have been required to declare that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the petitioners' lands lapsed on 28th July, 1997 and the logical consequence would have been to require the respondents to return the lands to the petitioners with a direction to the petitioners to return the compensation with interest. However, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction, it is open to this Court to mould the reliefs appropriately after taking into consideration the intervening events. As noticed earlier, as far back as in the year 1988, an industrial estate was established on the lands in question and, therefore, it would not be possible to issue any direction to the respondents to return the land to the petitioners. We may, therefore, consider the alternative contention of the petitioners that in case the lands cannot be returned to the petitioners, they be paid compensation at par with the compensation paid to the other landholders whose lands were acquired under the same notifications under Sections 4 and 6. ( 19 ) AS already indicated earlier, in respect of the lands in the same village which were acquired under the same notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, the Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per Hectare for the lands in village Sarangpur and at the rate of Rs. 35,000/- for the lands in village Jitali. Village Dadhal is not specifically mentioned in the award dated 02. 11. 1987 under Section 11 (1), but the learned advocates for the parties state that the lands in question in village Dadhal were also acquired for the same industrial estate, as the three villages are contiguous to each other. It would, therefore, not be unreasonable to refer to the award dated 02. 11. 1987 passed by the same Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11 (1) determining the market value of the lands in village Sarangpur and village Jitali for the purposes of determining as to what compensation should be paid to the petitioners whose lands in villages Sarangpur, Jitali and Dadhal were acquired under the same notification. ( 20 ) HOWEVER, the rate at which the compensation was paid to the landholders covered by the award dated 02. 11. ( 20 ) HOWEVER, the rate at which the compensation was paid to the landholders covered by the award dated 02. 11. 1987 cannot be mechanically applied to the petitioners for the following reasons :- (i) The notification under Section 4 was issued in the Government gazette dated 02. 6. 1983 and was last published at the site on 08. 09. 1983. The possession of the petitioners' lands was, however, taken over in 1980-1981 and the petitioners were paid 85% of the amount determined under the consent agreement in April, 1980. Hence, the market value of the petitioners' lands would have to be determined as on 25th April, 1980. The market value of the lands covered by the award dated 02. 11. 1987 determined as on 08. 09. 1983 would, therefore, have to be reduced by about 30%. (ii) The petitioners would not be entitled to get any additional increase under sub-section (1a) of Section 23, because the said provision provides for additional increase at the rate of 12% per annum for the period from the date of Section 4 notification till the date of award/date of taking over possession, whichever is earlier. In the instant case, the possession was taken over prior to issuance of Section 4 notification and, therefore, this amount also cannot be paid. (iii) Solatium under sub-section (2) of Section 23 is to be paid to the landholders on account of compulsory nature of the acquisition. In the instant cases, the petitioners had given consent for handing over possession and for determination of the compensation in the year 1980 and, therefore, this amount also the petitioners cannot claim in equity. (iv) Coming to the rate of interest, the petitioners themselves had initiated litigation in the year 1986 which continued till July, 1996. Hence, the petitioners cannot claim any interest for the period till July 1996. It is on account of non-making of the award within two years, which period expired on 27th July, 1997, as indicated hereinabove, that the petitioners are succeeding in these petitions and, therefore, it would be just and proper not to award any interest for the period upto July, 1997. These petitions were filed in March/april, 1998. Hence, the petitioners are certainly entitled to get interest for the period from 1st April, 1998. ( 21 ) THE market value determined by the Land Acquisition Officer under the award dated 02. 11. These petitions were filed in March/april, 1998. Hence, the petitioners are certainly entitled to get interest for the period from 1st April, 1998. ( 21 ) THE market value determined by the Land Acquisition Officer under the award dated 02. 11. 1987 has now been revised upward by the Reference Court by awarding additional compensation at the additional rate of Rs. 706/- per Are i. e. Rs. 70,600/- per Hectare over and above the rate at which compensation was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Since the judgment of the Reference Court has been rendered recently in May, 2009, the learned advocates for the respondents are not in a position to state whether that award of the Reference Court has attained any finality or whether it is to be challenged before this Court. ( 22 ) IN view of the above discussion, it appears to the Court that the interests of justice would be served if, instead of granting any declaration about lapsing of the acquisition proceedings in respect of the petitioners' lands on account of non-making of the award within two years as required by Section 11a of the Act, the respondents are directed to pay additional compensation to the petitioners on the basis of the following formula :- (i) The petitioners shall be paid compensation on the basis of the market value of the lands in village Sarangpur and Jitali/dadhal in Ankleshwar Taluka of Bharuch District at the market value which shall be taken at 30% less than the market value determined for the lands in the said villages under the award dated 02. 11. 1987 under Section 11 (1) of the Act, subject to revision of the said market value as per the judgment dated 15. 5. 2009 of the Court of the learned 5th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch in Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 488 of 1998 and connected cases. The market value of the lands acquired from village Dadhal shall be taken as the same market value determined for the lands acquired from village Jitali. (ii) However, the petitioners shall not be paid any additional increase under sub-section (1a) of Section 23 of the Act for any period. (iii) The petitioners shall also not be paid any amount by way of solatium under sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the Act. (ii) However, the petitioners shall not be paid any additional increase under sub-section (1a) of Section 23 of the Act for any period. (iii) The petitioners shall also not be paid any amount by way of solatium under sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the Act. (iv) The petitioners shall be paid interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the differential amount between the amount payable under this judgment and the amount already paid to the petitioners, for the period from 01. 04. 1998 till the date of payment. ( 23 ) WITHIN four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, the respondents shall pay the petitioners compensation for their lands of which possession was taken in the year 1980-1981, on the basis of the market value of the lands in village Sarangpur and Jitali (the land in villages Jitali and Dadhal be treated as having the same market value) as determined by the Reference Court in the judgment dated 15. 05. 2009 of the Court of the learned 5th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch in Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 488 of 1998 and connected cases after deducting 30% therefrom, but the petitioners shall not be entitled to claim any additional increase under sub-section (1a) of Section 23 or any solatium under sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the Act. On the differential amount payable under this judgment, the respondents shall pay the petitioners interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 01. 04. 1998 till the date of payment. It is made clear that these directions are given subject to the clarification that in case the judgment and award dated 15. 05. 2009 of the Court of the learned 5th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch in Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 488 of 1998 and connected cases is modified or stayed, the petitioners will be paid differential amount on the basis of such modification/stay. It is directed accordingly. ( 24 ) THE petitions are accordingly allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute to the above extent. Liberty to apply in case of difficulty.