Judgment :- 1. The Appellant/3rd Respondent has filed this Writ Appeal as against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 03.08.1994 passed in W.P.No.11531 of 1984. 2. TheLearned Single Judge while passing order in the Writ Petition has among other things observed that there has been no stay ordered by the Court, which acted as a impediment to the proceedings for award. While, no petitioner can take advantage of the order of stay on the one hand and the statutory limitation under Section 11-A of the Act on the other hand, the Respondents similarly cannot come forward and say that since the petition has been admitted and is pending, eventhough there is no order of stay, it has decided not to proceed in accordance with law and resultantly, interfered with the proceedings of the Respondents 2 and 3 in G.O.Ms.No.694, Education, Science and Technology dated 09.04.1983 and published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 27.04.1983 and quashed the same and allowed the Writ Petition without costs. 3. The learned counsel for the Appellant/3rd Respondent submits that the order of the Learned Single Judge in allowing the Writ Petition was against Law and contrary to facts and as a matter of fact, as per proviso to Section 11(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 an award can be passed within 2 years from the date of coming into force of the Central Act 68/94, which came into force on 24.09.1994 and in the present case on hand, award was passed on 011. 1985. 4. It is the further contention on the side of the Appellant/3rd Respondent that as per the explanation to Section 11(A) of the Act, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the Declaration was stayed by an order of Court, then the time shall be excluded in the instant case because of interim stay granted by this Court for all further proceedings and later, this Court was pleased to stay only dispossession in W.P.M.P.No.18477/1984 as per order dated 211. 1985. 5. Added further, the learned counsel for the Appellant takes a specific plea that in the present case Award No.2/85 was passed in respect of rest of the lands and indeed, the Learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition on the basis that no award was passed pursuant to Section 6 Declaration. 6. 1985. 5. Added further, the learned counsel for the Appellant takes a specific plea that in the present case Award No.2/85 was passed in respect of rest of the lands and indeed, the Learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition on the basis that no award was passed pursuant to Section 6 Declaration. 6. The learned counsel for the Appellant/3rd Respondent cites the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court M.Ramalinga Thevar v. State of Tamil Nadu and others (2000) 4 Supreme Court Cases 322 wherein it is observed as follows: ."Even when dispossession alone is stayed by the Court the period during which such stay operates would stand excluded from the time fixed for passing the award, the expiry of which would render the acquisition proceedings lapsed. In the light of the said interpretation it is now idle to contend that the Government is debarred from proceedings with the acquisition." .7. She also relies on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in L.N.Venkatesan v. State of Tamil Nadu and others (1997) 5 Supreme Court Cases 309 whereby and whereunder, it is held that ."from the year 1982 there has been an interim order against the Land Acquisition Officer disabling him to take possession of the land and hence, the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 does not lapse and consequently, notification under Section 4(1) also does not lapse." 8. It is relevant for this Court to aptly point out that the 1st Respondent/Writ Petitioner in her affidavit had among other things stated that she purchased certain items of land properties in Vadavalli village of Coimbatore Taluk in the years 1981 and 1982 and she purchased the 1st item of the property on 29.08.1981 from one Kuppuswami Chettiar of Marudhapuram hamlet of Vadavalli village as per sale deed, bearing document No.4311/81 and also purchased the 2nd item of the property from Kuppuswami Chettiar as per sale deed dated 12.07.1982 registered as document No.2850/82. 9. 9. The stand taken by the 1st Respondent/Writ Petitioner in the Writ Petition was that the landed properties purchased by her as referred to supra were sought to be acquired by the Appellant/3rd Respondent as per G.O.M.S.No.833/82 (Education, Science and Technology) dated 04.05.1982 issued under Section 4(1)of the Land Acquisition Act supplement to Part II and Section 2 of the Tamilnadu Gazette dated 02.06.1982 and the said notification did not contain her name, as the owner of the 1st item of property described in the schedule of the Writ Petition, though the same was purchased by her on 29.08.1981. 10. Furthermore, she was not issued with any notice as contemplated under Section 5(A) of the Land Acquisition Act nor she was given the benefit of any enquiry by the Collector or any such authority before the declaration of the acquired lands as per Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Authority. 11. In regard to the 2nd item of property, the contention of the 1st Respondent/Writ Petitioner was that the notification under reference referred to one Rangathal and Kuppuswami Chettiyar, as owners of the property as mentioned in G.O.M.S.No.833 (Education, Science and Technology) dated 04.05.1982 published in the Tamilnadu Gazette dated 02.06.1982 and indeed, the said Rangathal did not have any interest in the lands comprised in S.F.No.68/2 (or 69/1) in any way at that point of time. In fact, no notice was given to Rangathal and Kuppuswami Chettiyar as per Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act. Also, she was not given any notice under Section 5A of the Act nor she was given the benefit of any enquiry contemplated under the Act. 12. The sum and substance of the plea projected by the 1st Respondent/ Writ Petitioner was that the G.O.M.S.No. 694/EST dated 09.04.1983 published in Government Gazette on 27.04.1983 was liable to be quashed: .(a) for want of proper notice to the real owner; .(b) for not holding proper Section 5A enquiry; .(c) for not following the principles of natural justice; .(d) also for not taking into account the suitability of the property for the purpose of Appellant/University. .13. In this connection, we recall the observation made by the Learned Single Judge while allowing the Writ Petition No.11531 of 1984 in his order dated 03.08.1994 which run as follows: ."4. .13. In this connection, we recall the observation made by the Learned Single Judge while allowing the Writ Petition No.11531 of 1984 in his order dated 03.08.1994 which run as follows: ."4. To a query why when this Court has indicated in the above order that proceedings should be completed, care has not been taken to abide by the time schedule as contemplated under the Act itself, learned counsel for the Respondents has pointed out that the requisitioning authority has not yet made available the compensation money and until such compensation money is made available by the requisitioning authority, it is not possible to make the award. Be that as it may, this case in my opinion is fully convered by Section 11-A of the Act and the acquisition for the said reason has lapsed. Learned counsel for the Respondents has however pointed out that the period stipulated under Section 11-A of the Act has to be calculated after excluding the period consumed s the instant proceedings on amount of the interim order aforementioned. There can be no exception to the rule that in case a proceeding it stayed by a competent court of law, the period of limitation shall run only after the stay is vacated or when the matter is finally adjudicated by the court. In the instant case, however the above rule is obviously not applicable. There has been no stay ordered by the Court, which acted as an impediment to the proceedings for award. While no petitioner can take advantage of the order of stay on the one hand and the statutory limitation under Section 11-A of the Act on the other hand, the Respondents similarly cannot come forward and say that since the petition has been admitted and is pending a eventhough there is no order of stay, it has decided not to proceed in accordance with law." 14. Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 makes it mandatory for the Land Acquisition Authority to make an award under Section 11 i.e., within a period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration as per Section 6 of the Act. However, if no award was passed within the period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of land shall lapse. 15. However, if no award was passed within the period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of land shall lapse. 15. It is to be borne in mind that the explanation to Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provides for the exclusion from the period of two years of the period of stay granted by a Court of any action or proceeding in pursuance of the declaration under Section 6. It cannot be gainsaid that the explanation will apply only when the action or proceeding stayed is in pursuance of the Declaration under Section 6. 16. We deem it appropriate to cite the decision Sachidanad Lal v. State of Bihar AIR 1989 Pat 181 wherein, it is held that .17. Earlier, the Appellant/University filed C.M.P.No. 2816 of 2000 under Section 5 of the Limitation .Act praying to condone the delay of 1497 days in filing the Writ Appeal and the delay was condoned by this Court as per order dated 06.08.2001. The Appellant/University in W.A.M.P.No.17883 of 2001 in W.A.No.2287 of 2001 has obtained an order of interim stay notice from this Court on 011. 2001. 18. Inthe decision Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Lichho Devi and others, 1997 J.T. Vol.VII 694, the Honourable Supreme Court has held thus, "where the High Court passed an interim order restraining the making of any award the period during which the order remained in force had to be excluded in computing the period of two years." "In Government of Tamilnadu and another v. Vasantha Bai (1995) 2 S.C.C (Supp.) 423, a Bench of this Court has held that the stay order of the type that was granted in the instant case, tantamounts to stay of further proceedings being taken and therefore the entire period during which the stay order was in operation was to be excluded while computing the period of two years prescribed for making an award under Sec.11-A of the Act. This Court finds that the High Court has not dealt with the merits of the writ petition and quashed the notification on an erroneous interpretation of the stay order." .19. This Court finds that the High Court has not dealt with the merits of the writ petition and quashed the notification on an erroneous interpretation of the stay order." .19. Also in Lok Sewa Shikshan Mandal v. A.R.Mundhada Charitable Trust and others AIR 2007 Supreme Court 1656, the Honourable Apex Court has observed as follows: ."In the instant cast the notification for acquisition of land under S.6 was published on July 2, 1986, no award was made within two years as required by S.11A. The High Court in petition by landowner found that the proceedings had lapsed in absence of stay. The finding of the High Court was proper. Further the High Court had admitted petition of landowner by issuing rule nisi. Rule was also issued on stay. However, the High Court had not granted stay against any proceeding. Merely Rule was issued on the prayer of stay made by the petitioner in the petition. When matter came up subsequently before the High Court for hearing on Rule on stay the High Court passed the order, "the Respondent if proceeds with the construction of building that will be subject to the decision of this petition. The communication by the Registry of the High Court also did not state that acquisition proceedings were stayed by the Court. Thus the High Court was right and wholly justified in holding that there was no stay of any proceeding and hence, Explanation to S.11A had no application. Therefore, the finding by the High Court that since award was not made within a period of two years from the date of publication of final notification under S.6 of the Act, the proceedings lapsed, could not be interfered with." .20. In decision Shri Abhey Ram (dead) by Legal Representatives and others v. Union of India and others JT 1997 (5) S.C. 354, the Honourable Supreme Court inter alia observed that ."In view of the fact that the notification under Section 4(1) is a composite one and equally the declaration under Section 6 is also a composite one, unless the declaration under Section 6 is quashed in toto, it does not operate as if that the entire declaration requires to be quashed." .21. As far as the present case is concerned, Section 4(1) Notification issued in respect of acquisition of survey Nos. 66A/1 etc. As far as the present case is concerned, Section 4(1) Notification issued in respect of acquisition of survey Nos. 66A/1 etc. in Somayanpalayam Village measuring an extent of 47.97 acres for Bharthiyar University, Coimbatore was issued on 04.05.1982. On 02.06.1982 Section 4(1) Notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published in the Tamil Nadu Gazette. Section 6 declaration was made as per G.O.M.S.No.694(Education, Science and Technology) dated 09.04.1983. Section 6 declaration was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 27.04.1983. 22. That apart, the 1st Respondent/Writ Petitioner was issued with notice under Section 9(3) and Section 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of survey No.68/2 measuring 1 acre 47 cents, survey No.69/1A measuring 1 acre 45 cents and on going through the Coimbatore RDO Office records in Sl.No.2 File No.9521/1987, we find that the 1st Respondent/Writ Petitioners husband K.S.Ram Krishnanda has received Section 9(3) notice on behalf of his wife viz., the 1st Respondent/Writ Petitioner. Also, on 22.05.1984, the said K.S.RamKrishnananda husband of 1st Respondent/Writ Petitioner had given a statement before the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition Unit), Bharathiyar University, Coimbatore. 23. On 22.05.1984, it is the 1st Respondent/Writ Petitioner through her counsel K.S.RamKrishnananda had submitted a written statement raising objection praying for fixation of Rs.3,000/- per cent as value for the house site properties and to pass an award accordingly or else to make a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. .24. In W.P.M.P.No.18477 of 1984, this Court on 12.09.1985 had passed the following order: ."Government Pleader reports that on verifying the plans, the extent involved in the Writ Petition is towards the peripheral portion under acquisition. Therefore as already directed on 29.08.1985, interim stay is made absolute, subject to the condition that the Respondents could proceed with the acquisition proceedings and pass an award, but not to take possession without prior order of this court. In the course of taking further proceedings, it is entirely left to the discretion of the Respondents to take note of the points taken in the Writ petition, and if there are any infirmities as claimed, they could even be rectified, and thereafter proceed further with the matter. This order is confined only to the petitioner and non else." 25. As seen from Coimbatore RDO Office records in File No.10/82, Volume 2, the award No.2/85 (10/82) dated 011. This order is confined only to the petitioner and non else." 25. As seen from Coimbatore RDO Office records in File No.10/82, Volume 2, the award No.2/85 (10/82) dated 011. 1985 under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act was passed by the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Bharathiyar University, Unit-1, Coimbatore, Madras-18 in respect of true area of the land in acre 45.05 cents and a total compensation of Rs.9,36,177.60 was awarded to the land owners in respect of lands acquired excluding the 1st Respondent/Writ Petitioner land. 26. From the date of publication of Section 6 declaration in Tamilnadu Gazette dated 27.04.1983, the award No.2/85 dated 011. 1985 was actually passed on 011. 1985 and in respect of the lands owned by the different owners other than then of the 1st Respondent/Writ Petitioner. .27. Inregard to the land of the 1st Respondent/Writ Petitioner, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for Respondents 2 and 3 submits that in W.P.No.11531 of 1984 filed by the 1st Respondent/Writ Petitioner, this Court was pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings and issued notice. Further on 211. 2985, this Court was pleased to pass an order limiting the stay only to the aspect of dispossession and permitted the other proceedings to proceed further. Also on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3, it is submitted that since there was stay of all further proceedings passed by this Court in W.P.No.11531 of 1984, the award in regard to the 1st Respondent/Writ Petitioners land was not passed. 28. Moreover, in respect of other lands, the award was passed on 011. 1985 in award No.2/85 and Section 4(1) was fully complied with and the acquisition was in order. 29. Inasmuch as this Court had granted stay of all further proceedings at the time when the Writ Petition was filed by the 1st Respondent/Writ Petitioner and later, the stay was limited to an order of dispossession of land and bearing in mind of the fact that an award was passed in award No.2/85 on 011. 29. Inasmuch as this Court had granted stay of all further proceedings at the time when the Writ Petition was filed by the 1st Respondent/Writ Petitioner and later, the stay was limited to an order of dispossession of land and bearing in mind of the fact that an award was passed in award No.2/85 on 011. 1985, on the facts and circumstances of the present case which float on the surface, we are of the considered view that Section 6 declaration dated 27.04.1983 in so far as it relates to the 1st Respondent/Writ Petitioner does not lapse and consequently, Section 4(1) Notification dated 04.05.1982 in respect of subject matter of the land equally does not lapse as per ingredients of Section 11-A explanation of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 30. In the light of the above, this Court is not in agreement with the observation of the Learned Single Judge made in the Writ petition No.11531 of 1984 to the effect that an award was not passed, etc. In reality, a compensation amount of Rs.9,36,138/-was deposited by the respondents 2 and 3 as per their averment made in C.M.P.No.17883 of 2001 in W.A.No.2287 of 2001. Consequently, we are constrained to interfere with the order of the Learned Single Judge dated 03.08.1994 in allowing the Writ Petition No.11531 of 1984 and set aside the said order by allowing the present appeal in the interests of justice. 31. In the result, the Writ Appeal is allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The order of the Learned Single Judge passed in W.P.No.11531 of 1984 is set aside by this Court for the reasons assigned in this appeal. It is open to the Respondents 2 and 3 to take further proceedings in respect of land of the 1st Respondent/Writ Petitioner (which is subject matter of land acquisition proceedings) in the manner known to law.