Per M.M. Kumar, CJ.;— 1. This order shall dispose of two Letters Patent Appeals one by the Divisional Commissioner Kashmir alongwith another Officer and the other by Union of India, against the common judgment dated 05.06.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge, setting aside order dated 09.12.2006 passed by the Divisional Commissioner and consequential order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 02 03.2007. 2. Facts are not in dispute. The land belonging to the private respondents, measuring 8 kanal 17 marlas falling under Survey no. 11(3 kanal 6 marla) and Survey no. 14 (5 kanal 11 marla) situate at Zewan was acquired by the appellant-State at the request of ITB Police. A final award was announced by the Collector (Deputy Commissioner) Srinagar on 25.06.2003 in respect of the total area acquired. However, on 07.08.2003 the Collector found that no award was announced in respect of a good number of fruit and non-fruit bearing trees and a stone crusher which existed in the acquired land. There was no process of assessment undertaken by the concerned technical authority. On the ground that no compensation was assessed in respect of trees and machinery, the land owners refused to accept the compensation. The Additional Deputy Commissioner, in his recommendations dated 02.04.2004 indicated that the concerned land owners were not coming forward to collect the compensation amount of the land as per the award dated 25.06.2003 on the plea that no amount was assessed for the Crusher, trees etc. He suggested that the amount be assessed for the Crusher and trees etc. and the details of the assessment as given by him would read as under:- S.NO. Details Amount i. Assessment report regarding shifting of Electric connection of Stone crusher of M/s Fine Star (A) received from Ex. Engg. Ed-1st Srinagar vide his letter No. EDI/TS 13421-22 dated 28.02.2004 Rs. 13,42,000/- 2. Assessment of non- fruit bearing trees received from DFC, Lidder Forest Division, Bijbehara vide No. 3832-33/LS dated 16.02.2004. Rs. 2, 45,931/- 3. Assessment of machinery and equipment of Stone crusher received from Ex. Engg. Mechanical Division, Srinagar vide his letter No. MDS/TS/7201-11 dated 23.01.2004 Rs. 11,30,458/- 4. Assessment of fruit bearing trees received from Chief Horticulture Officer, Srinagar vide his DIV/3178-80 dated 12.12.2003 Rs. 1,15,740/- 5. Assessment of structures received from SE R&B Circle Srinagar vide his letter No. 12519-20 Dated 20.11.2003 Rs. 6,60,000/- 6. Total Rs. 34,94,469/- 7. Engg. Mechanical Division, Srinagar vide his letter No. MDS/TS/7201-11 dated 23.01.2004 Rs. 11,30,458/- 4. Assessment of fruit bearing trees received from Chief Horticulture Officer, Srinagar vide his DIV/3178-80 dated 12.12.2003 Rs. 1,15,740/- 5. Assessment of structures received from SE R&B Circle Srinagar vide his letter No. 12519-20 Dated 20.11.2003 Rs. 6,60,000/- 6. Total Rs. 34,94,469/- 7. 15% Jabirana on S.No. 6 as admissible under Rules. Rs. 5,24,170/- 8. Total of S.No. 6 & 7. Rs. 40,18,639/- 9. Compensation of land awarded Rs. 12,14,400/- 10. Grand Total Rs. 52,33,039/- 11. Amount received from ITBP Rs. 17,29,600/- 12. Balance amount Rs. 35,03,439/- 3. The aforesaid communication was not acted upon which led to filing of O WP No. 339/2005 titled Ghulam Nabi Bhat and ore v. State and others. The Writ Court disposed of the writ petition on 26.07.2006, directing the Divisional Commissioner to discharge his statutory obligation in passing appropriate orders on the recommendations of the Additional Deputy Commissioner Srinagar. Accordingly, the Divisional Commissioner was to consider the recommendations and to pass appropriate orders. 4. There was exchange of some communication between the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar and the Divisional Commissioner. The Divisional Commissioner found that the final award was required to rectify. He took the view that rectification could have been effected only under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act within a period of six months from the date of award. According to the Divisional Commissioner the period of six months had elapsed and, therefore, no rectification was possible. Accordingly, he referred the matter to the Government on 16.05.2005. The Government referred back the matter to the Divisional Commissioner, asking him to explain why the compensation for fruit/non-fruit bearing trees, structure and stone crusher was not indicated in the award by the Collector Land Acquisition. He was advised that the matter be re-examined and processed through Financial Commissioner, Revenue. The Divisional Commissioner reiterated his view and directed the District Collector Srinagar to examine the case afresh in accprdance with rules and regulations. 5. The Divisional Commissioner, after reciting various facts which led to the acquisition of land measuring 8 kanal 17 marlas, referred to the letter of the Additional Deputy Commissioner dated 02.04.2004 suggesting payment of compensation. The Divisional Commissioner reiterated his view and directed the District Collector Srinagar to examine the case afresh in accprdance with rules and regulations. 5. The Divisional Commissioner, after reciting various facts which led to the acquisition of land measuring 8 kanal 17 marlas, referred to the letter of the Additional Deputy Commissioner dated 02.04.2004 suggesting payment of compensation. However, the suggestion made by the Additional Deputy Commissioner was rejected on the ground that Section 11-A provided for correction of clerical, arithmetical mistakes in the Award or errors arising therein and that too within a period of six months and proceeded to conclude as under:- "9. Whereas, since the stipulation as laid down under Section 11 (a) of the Land Acquisition Act was not followed in this case and the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar had proposed inclusion of amount, larger than the main Award amount itself, in the Award alter the expiry of the stipulated period of six months, the matter had been referred to the Govt. by the then Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir vide No. Div. Com/LAS/Misc/1517 dated 16.05.2005 for conveying appropriate orders as the case was not covered under Section 11 (A) and, therefore, beyond the competence of Divisional Commissioner; 10. Whereas, the Govt. returned the case to the Divisional Commissioner asking him to indicate as to why compensation for fruit/non-fruit bearing trees, structures and stone crusher was not included in the Award by the Collector, Land Acquisition and further advised that the matter be re-examined and furnished through Financial Commissioner Revenue. The papers received back from the Govt. vide No. Rev. (LAK) 324/05 dated 22.06.2005 were forwarded to the District Collector, Land Acquisition Srinagar under No. Div. Com/LAC/(517)/04 dated 29.07.2005 for reply; 11. Whereas, on examination of the case it is revealed that S/Sh. Ab. Rashid Dar S/o Rehman Dar, Assadullah, Gh. Mohd, Ali Mohammad and others had submitted an application to the District Collector on 24.01.2003 for including the compensation for Stone Crusher, etc. in the assessment. Since the final award was passed almost six months after the application was submitted by the land owners, this aspect must have been taken note of by the Collector while passing the Award; 12. Whereas, ITBP vide there letter No. 14027/21Bn/ITBP/Engg/Land/2005-624 dated 01.12.2005 had also forwarded an undertaking give by Sh. Ab. in the assessment. Since the final award was passed almost six months after the application was submitted by the land owners, this aspect must have been taken note of by the Collector while passing the Award; 12. Whereas, ITBP vide there letter No. 14027/21Bn/ITBP/Engg/Land/2005-624 dated 01.12.2005 had also forwarded an undertaking give by Sh. Ab. Rashid Dar, co-sharer of the land on which the stone crusher exists, to the effect that crusher will be shifted from the said land by him and he has No Objection if ITBP procures his land. 13. Whereas, in the light of the directions, dated 26.07.2006 of the Hon'ble High Court and facts brought out in the fore-going paras, it was felt necessary to gets detailed factual position, after spot verification, from Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar. Accordingly, the District Collector was directed vide letter No. Div. Com/LAS/Misc/(517) dated 31.10.2006 to furnish an upto date status report of the case; 14. Whereas, the District Collector furnished his report under letter No. 520/LAC/1322 dated 03.11.2006 mentioning that the possession of 06 kanals 12 marlas of land under Survey Nos. 11 and 14 min has been delivered to the Commandant 14 Bn ITBP on 29.07.2003 and that the indenting department has not made any mention of the existence of Stone Crusher and standing trees till the announcement of the Award and taking over the possession of land. The District Collector has further mentioned that, as per the acquaintance roll, land owners, Abdul Rashed Dar and Gh. Nabi Dar, have approached for receiving compensation through attorney for land measuring 02 kanals 01 marlas under Survey No. 11 min and have received the compensation of Rs. 3,77,2007- through R.D. bill under T.R. No. 1 dated 29.03.2005. It was only after receipt of letter No. 417-18/NTKH/03 dated 30.09.2003 from Naib-Tehsildar concerned, mentioning that a non-functional Stone crusher and fruit/non-fruit bearing trees were also existing under Survey No. 11 min, the District Collector asked the indenting department to arrange the amount of compensation of stone crusher, etc. who did not provide the funds on the plea that one of the land owners has given an undertaking to the effect that he will shift the stone crusher and he has No-Objection if the indenting department acquires the land under question. who did not provide the funds on the plea that one of the land owners has given an undertaking to the effect that he will shift the stone crusher and he has No-Objection if the indenting department acquires the land under question. The District Collector has further mentioned that he constituted a team of officers who have reported that a non-functional stone crusher alongwith one storeyed concrete partially tin roofed shed are existing on the land measuring 02 kanals 01 marlas under Survey Nos. 11 min and 14 min. There are some poplar trees existing as well. The District Collector has intimated that the stone crusher is not in possession of ITBP at present and the proprietor/owner of the land is adamant not to handover the possession to ITBP till he is paid compensation for the same. 15. Whereas, the communication bearing No. 14027/21BN/ITBP/Engg/Land/04-412-15 dated 14.06.2004 of ITBP mentioned in the foregoing paras, read with the report of Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar dated 03.11.2006, suggest that the land measuring 02 kanals 05 marlas having crusher on it, has not been in the possession of ITBP and that they have indicated in unambiguous terms that they would not require this land and have asked for refund of the balance compensation amount; 16. Now, therefore, having examined the case in the light of the directions, dated 26.07.2006 of the Hon'ble High Court, the material available on the records and the relevant rules governing the subject, I have reached the conclusion that the case is not covered under the provision of Section 11-A of Land Acquisition Act 1990 (1934 A.D.), and, accordingly request made by Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar vide his No. 1-3/LAC/1322 dated 02.04.2004 is hereby rejected. The District Collector, Srinagar shall examine the case afresh in accordance with the rules and regulations, after taking into account all the relevant facts." 6. On the basis of the aforesaid order of the Divisional Commissioner the Deputy Commissioner passed an order on 02.03.2007, concluding that the writ petitioners-respondents were not entitled to any compensation in respect of trees and machinery as application has become unproductive within the meaning of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and also in view of the undertaking given by the applicant in which it was stated that he would shift the Crusher on his own if ITBP was to acquire his land. The order of the Divisional Commissioner dated 09.12.2006 and that of the District Collector/Deputy Commissioner dated 02.03.2007 were subjected to challenge in OWP no. 213/2007, relatable to this appeal, before the learned Single Judge. 7. The learned Single Judge has set aside both these orders and the reasoning is revealed in the concluding portion of the Judgment which reads as under:- "On going through the reasons recorded by the Divisional Commissioner, I find he has not properly appreciated the actual controversy which arose in the matter. The case was regarding correction of award as it was found that there were errors in it due to non-inclusion of compensation only for fruit and non-fruit bearing trees and the structures like crusher etc. standing on it. It was not the case of reassessment of fresh acquisition but only of the correction of earlier award which in the opinion of the authorities concerned was required in view of the fact that while making the earlier assessment of compensation, these trees/structures had been left out. In these circumstances, I do not find due force in the reasons recorded by the divisional Commissioner. The order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 2.3.2007 is based on the order of the Divisional Commissioner Kashmir dated 9th December, 2006, as such, the same is also without any substance. In these circumstances, this petition is allowed. Order dated 9th December, 2006 of the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir and order date 2nd March, 2007 of the District Collector/Deputy Commissioner Srinagar are hereby set-aside. Divisional Commissioner Kashmir is directed to examine the matter afresh after taking into consideration the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner/Additional Deputy Commissioner concerned for correction/rectification of the award. Order accordingly." 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their able assistance. 9. The moot question which needs determination by this Court is whether an additional award could be made in respect of the infrastructure, trees or machinery, after the expiry of statutory period of two years as provided by Section 11 of the Act. It is appropriate to mention that an award in respect of acquired land must be made before expiry of two years commencing from the date of declaration issued by the State under Section 6 of the Act. It is appropriate to mention that an award in respect of acquired land must be made before expiry of two years commencing from the date of declaration issued by the State under Section 6 of the Act. The issue is no longer res integra and the matter was settled by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Mohanji and anr v. State of U.P and ors JT1995 (8) S.C 599. The view taken by their Lordships is that the entire award contemplated under Section 11 of the Act has to be announced within a period of two years as per the prescription in Section 11-A, failing which the entire proceedings would lapse. It was, however, further opined that once the award has been made then it was not possible to conclude that no award could be made in respect of building, trees and machinery etc. It was further held that the land owners or interested persons would be entitled to claim compensation for these items by seeking a reference under Section 18 of the Act. The view of their Lordships is discernible from para 5 of the judgment, which reads thus:- "5. It is no doubt true that the entire award which is contemplated under Section 11 of the Act by virtue of the prescription in Section 11A has to be made within the period of two years failing which the entire proceeding shall lapse. The question is whether it can be said in the present case that no award has been made under Section 11 of the Act in this proceeding? In our view it cannot be said that no award under Section 11 has been made for the land acquired. Admittedly, compensation has been determined in the award so made for the entire area of 0.99 acres. In view of the fact that no piecemeal award by making a subsequent award after the expiry of the period of two years is contemplated in law, the award dated 23.09.1986 must be construed as the whole award made under Section 11 awarding compensation for the entire area of 0.99 acres with no compensation awarded for the building. In view of the fact that no piecemeal award by making a subsequent award after the expiry of the period of two years is contemplated in law, the award dated 23.09.1986 must be construed as the whole award made under Section 11 awarding compensation for the entire area of 0.99 acres with no compensation awarded for the building. The appellants, therefore, had the right to claim compensation for the building by seeking a reference under Section 18 of the Act treating the award as one in which compensation had been determined and awarded only for the entire land measuring 0.99 acres but no compensation was awarded for the building therein. The appellants had the remedy to claim compensation for the building in accordance with law treating the award made as not awarding any compensation for the building. That is, however, a different matter and it does not require any further consideration in this context. It is sufficient to say that the award dated 23.09.1986 made within the period specified in Section 11A of the Act must be construed as an award under Section 11 in the proceedings for acquisition of the appellants' land bearing Plot no.1311 having a total area of 0.99 acres. The contention that the entire proceeding for acquisition of the land has lapsed by virtue of Section 11A cannot, therefore, be accepted." 9. The aforesaid view has been followed and applied in the case of State of Punjab and ors v. Sharan Pal Singh and ors (1996) 11 SCC 683 . It is thus patent that even if the authorities are willing to pay than there is no impediment for them to make payment of the additional compensation in respect of the trees, machinery and other left out items. The approach of the Divisional Commissioner as well as that of the Deputy Commissioner in the impunged orders is wholly oblivious of law because announcement of supplementary award would not amount to rectification of the award by correcting clerical mistake. Therefore, the recommendations of the Additional Deputy Commissioner dated 02.04.2004 require to be considered as per the law. The learned Single Judge also failed to follow the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court. The conclusion reached by his Lordship is correct yet the reasoning needs to be rectified 10. Therefore, the recommendations of the Additional Deputy Commissioner dated 02.04.2004 require to be considered as per the law. The learned Single Judge also failed to follow the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court. The conclusion reached by his Lordship is correct yet the reasoning needs to be rectified 10. As a sequel to the above discussion, we uphold the view of the learned Single Judge in its conclusion but substitute the reasoning adopted by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Mohanji's case (supra). In other words, there is no impediment for payment of compensation by the State by publishing a supplementary award in respect of the trees, super-structure and machinery, if the same has been omitted in the original award. It is further clarified that payment of compensation in respect of the super-structure, trees and machinery would not result into lapse of proceedings having gone beyond a period of two years. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly directed the appellants to re-consider the matter and pay to the writ petitioners-respondents their dues even in respect of the super-structure, machinery and trees. 11. The appeals do not merit admission and are, accordingly, dismissed. It is needless to add that the stay order passed by this Court on 21.10.2011 would cease to operate.