JUDGMENT D.G. Karnik, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. 2. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, Mr. V.B. Ghatge, waives service for respondent nos.1 to 3, and learned Counsel, Smt. Chaitali Kutti, waives service for respondent no.4. 3. By consent taken up for hearing. 4. The petitioners claim to be owners of the lands bearing Gut Nos. 90, 91/2/2/1B, 77/7 and 77/8. In the year 2001, their lands were proposed to be acquired for the purpose of construction of percolation water tank so as to provide work for famine affected people. It appears that the possession of the lands was also taken from the petitioners in the year 2001. There is a dispute between the parties as to actual date on which possession is taken and we would have an occasion to refer it in the later part of this judgment. It is, however, not disputed that the possession of the petitioners' lands has been taken and percolation water tank has been constructed. Grievance of the petitioners is that despite several representations to formally acquire their lands and pay them compensation, award has not been passed and compensation has not been paid. The petitioners have, therefore, approached this Court for a mandamus directing the respondents to pass an award and pay the compensation. 5. Before we proceed to consider the other aspects, it would be appropriate to refer to the dispute raised by the respondents regarding the date of possession. According to the respondents, possession of the lands was taken in the year 2006, while according to the petitioners, they were dispossessed in the year 2001 itself. A photostat copy of the chart of work of percolation tank signed by the Executive Engineer of the respondent no.4, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Water Supply, Zilla Parishad, and the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, is produced at Exhibit "B" to the petition. The chart shows that the lands were acquired on 15-5-2001. However, after the date of acquisition viz. 15-5-2001, it is mentioned that the actual possession was taken on 2nd March 2006. Relying upon this chart, learned Counsel for respondent no.4 submitted that the possession was actually taken in the year 2006. We are not impressed by this submission. The chart shows that the lands were acquired on 15-5-2001. However, after the date of acquisition viz. 15-5-2001, it is mentioned that the actual possession was taken on 2nd March 2006. Relying upon this chart, learned Counsel for respondent no.4 submitted that the possession was actually taken in the year 2006. We are not impressed by this submission. A letter dated 18th March 2004 written by the Superintending Engineer and Administrator, Command Area Development Authority, Jalgaon, to the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Jalgaon (Exhibit "C" to the petition), shows that for the period from 17-5-2001 to 16-5-2003, rental compensation at the rate of Rs. 1792/- was paid to the petitioners. If the possession of the lands was not taken over from the petitioners till 2nd March 2006, there was no question of payment of rental compensation to them for the years 2001-02 and 2002-03. The very fact, that the rental compensation was ordered to be paid to them, clearly indicates that the possession of the lands was taken from the petitioners in the month of May 2001 itself. 6. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for acquisition of the lands was issued by the Government on 26th July 2010 for the first time. A copy of the notification is produced at page 48 of the petition. The delay caused for issuance of Section 4 notification is not explained by the respondents in the affidavit filed on their behalf by Mr. Vijaykumar Ahire, Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon. In view of the fact that the possession of the lands was taken from the petitioners in the year 2001 itself and for a period of more than 11 years the award has not been passed and no compensation has been paid to the petitioners, it is necessary to issue directions to the respondents to complete the process of acquisition and pay compensation to the petitioners under the Land Acquisition Act within a reasonable period, and in the meanwhile pay ad hoc amount on the basis of market value fixed by the government (Ready-Reckoner) for the purpose of stamp duty. 7. Before we pass the final order, it is necessary to mention that the relevant date for determination of the market value of the lands is the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act i.e. 26th July 2010. 7. Before we pass the final order, it is necessary to mention that the relevant date for determination of the market value of the lands is the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act i.e. 26th July 2010. It cannot be disputed that the prices of the lands would have gone up many fold between 15th May 2001, when possession of the lands was taken over from the petitioners, and 26th July 2010, when notification under Section 4 is issued. Substantial loss is, therefore, likely to be caused to the exchequer by payment of compensation at a rate much higher than the market rate prevailing on the date on which possession was taken. If the process of acquisition would have been initiated and notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act had been issued in May 2001 itself or soon thereafter, the compensation would have been payable based on the market value prevailing in the year 2001. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent nos.1 to 3 states that if the State is required to bear the loss, ultimately it would be required to recover the extra amount from the taxes paid by the citizens and, therefore, it may be recovered from the officers responsible for the delay. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent nos.1 to 3 further states that the Collector may be directed to enquire and determine who is responsible for not initiating proper steps for acquisition which has resulted in the delay in issuing notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The submission is accepted. 8. We accordingly allow the Writ Petition in the following terms:- (i) The State is directed to complete the process of acquisition of the lands and publish of award within six months from today and pay compensation to the petitioners within a period of two months thereafter. In the meanwhile, the respondents shall pay ad hoc amount equal to 75 % of the market value for the purposes of stamp duty (Ready Reckoner) prepared by the government for the concerned area and pay the same to the petitioners within three months from today. The petitioners shall also be entitled to solatium and other statutory benefits. In the meanwhile, the respondents shall pay ad hoc amount equal to 75 % of the market value for the purposes of stamp duty (Ready Reckoner) prepared by the government for the concerned area and pay the same to the petitioners within three months from today. The petitioners shall also be entitled to solatium and other statutory benefits. (ii) The Collector, Jalgaon, shall also hold an inquiry and determine the officers who are responsible for the delay in initiating the acquisition proceedings and in issuing of a notification between May 2001 and 26th July 2010. The Collector shall determine loss that is caused to the exchequer due to payment of higher compensation and after giving opportunity of hearing to the concerned, recover the loss from the officer / officers responsible for the delay. (iii) The Collector shall submit report of compliance of this order to this Court within six months from today. 9. Rule is made absolute to the extent indicated above, with costs.