Judgment : 1. The petitioners, whose lands were proposed to be acquired for providing house sites to the displaced persons of Padthanpalli, Karnamamidi and Kondapalli villages, which got submerged under Sripada Sagar Project, filed this Writ Petition assailing the acquisition proceedings. 2. Even though several grounds have been raised seeking invalidation of the acquisition proceedings by the petitioners in their affidavit, Sri Mangena Sreerama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, advanced the only contention that the whole acquisition proceedings have lapsed, as the respondents have failed to pass the award within two years of publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”). The learned counsel argued that even though in Writ Petition No.9486 of 2008 filed by similarly placed persons, an interim order was granted by this Court on 24.06.2008, only to the limited extent of dispossession and that therefore there was no legal impediment for the respondents to make the award within the period, as stipulated under Section 11-A of the Act. The learned counsel submitted that the explanation to Section 11-A excludes the period during which an order of stay was in force disabling the respondents from making the award and that mere stay of dispossession will not fall within the scope of explanation to Section 11-A of the Act. 3. The above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is no longer res integra. In Yusufbhai Noormohmed Nendoliya vs. State of Gujarat and another (1991) 4 SCC 531 the Supreme Court held that the explanation to Section 11-A is in the widest possible terms and that there is no warrant for limiting the action or proceedings referred to in the explanation to actions or proceedings preceding the making of award under Section 11 of the Act. The Supreme Court further held that in order to get the benefit of lapse of acquisition proceedings, the landholder, who seeks the benefit, must not have obtained any order from a Court restraining any action or proceeding in pursuance of declaration under Section 6 of the Act. 4. The Supreme Court further held that in order to get the benefit of lapse of acquisition proceedings, the landholder, who seeks the benefit, must not have obtained any order from a Court restraining any action or proceeding in pursuance of declaration under Section 6 of the Act. 4. A similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in Bailamma @ Doddabailamma and others vs. Poornaprajna House Building Cooperative Society and others (2006) 2 SCC 416 , wherein, while pursuing the same line of interpretation, it held that even in cases where any person, other than the land owners, obtained interim order, the explanation is attracted and the period during which the interim order is granted stands excluded. This view is reiterated by the Supreme Court in Om Prakash vs. Union of India and others (2010) 4 SCC 17 . 5. In the instant case, interim stay of dispossession was granted on 24.06.2008 in Writ Petition No.9486 of 2008 filed by certain other interested persons and the said stay subsisted till 30.11.2010 when the Writ Petition was dismissed and award was passed on 07.06.2011. Following the ratio in the above-noted judgments, it needs to be held that the period during which interim stay of dispossession granted in Writ Petition No.9486 of 2008 has to be excluded by applying the explanation to Section 11-A of the Act. 6. At the hearing, it is not disputed that if the period between 24.06.2008 and 30.11.2010 is excluded, award will be well within the time of two years, as prescribed under Section 11-A of the Act. On the above analysis, I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 7. As a sequel, WPMP.No.17943 of 2011 is also dismissed.