JUDGMENT : This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare that the land acquisition proceedings initiated in respect of the petitioners’ lands admeasuring Ac.8-37 cents in Sy.Nos.321/1, 321/2 and 188 of Gummuluru village, Korukonda Mandal, East Godavari District, have lapsed. The petitioners sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to restore possession of Ac.5.73 cents of land. 2. The petitioners are the owners of the above mentioned land. These lands were notified for acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) issued on 20-12-2003. The purpose of acquisition was to provide house sites to landless poor persons. Having regard to the urgency felt by the respondents, the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with by invoking the provisions of Section 17 (4) of the Act. It is the admitted case of the parties that possession of the land to the extent of Ac.5.73 cents was taken leaving the balance land in the possession of the petitioners. The main plea of the petitioners in this writ petition is that with the non-passing of award within the period of two years as envisaged under Section 11-A of the Act, the entire land acquisition proceedings have lapsed. 3. Respondent No.3 filed a detailed counter affidavit wherein it is inter alia stated that after the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with, 80% of the compensation amount was offered to the petitioners under letter dated 237-1-2004 and that after depositing the same, advance possession of Ac.5.73 cents was taken on 4-2-2004. The counter affidavit has also enumerated the various subsequent events following the issuance of notices under Sections 9 (1) and 10 and 9(3) and 10 of the Act relating to constitution of the District Level Negotiation Committee (for short “the Committee”) and the negotiations that have taken place between the petitioners and the Committee. It is also further stated that a layout for 202 plots was prepared and that 139 beneficiaries were identified and pattas were distributed to them. 4. The main point that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the land acquisition proceedings lapsed by efflux of time. 5. Under Section 11-A of the Act, if the award is not passed within two years from the publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act, the land acquisition proceedings would lapse. 4. The main point that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the land acquisition proceedings lapsed by efflux of time. 5. Under Section 11-A of the Act, if the award is not passed within two years from the publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act, the land acquisition proceedings would lapse. In Satendra Prasad Jain Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh ( AIR 1993 S.C. 2517 ), the Supreme Court held that where advance possession is taken, the acquisition proceedings would not lapse even if the award is passed beyond the period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. This Judgment was followed by the Supreme Court in Awadh Bihari Yadav Vs. State of Bihar ( AIR 1996 S.C. 122 ). However, in Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2011) 9 SCC 354 ), the learned Judges of the Supreme Court have differed in their view on the interpretation of the provisions of Section 11-A of the Act. The Bench has considered the Judgment in Satendra Prasad Jain (1-supra) and one of the learned Judges held that the view taken in the said case that the acquisition proceedings will not lapse where possession is taken, requires reconsideration. In view of the divergent views among the learned Judges on the Bench, the issue has been referred to a Larger Bench. However, the fact remains that the Judgment in Satendra Prasad Jain (1-supra) is still holding the field and therefore the plea of the petitioners that the land acquisition proceedings have lapsed as the award was not passed within the period prescribed under Section 11-A of the Act cannot be accepted. 6. As regards the passing of the award, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, even if his clients have not agreed on the quantum of compensation during negotiations, nothing prevented respondent No.3 from passing a general award. Respondent No.3 is therefore directed to pass an award under Section 11(1) of the Act after giving notice to the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. 7. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. 8. As a sequel to the disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.5284/2013 is disposed of as infructuous.