Judgment 1. The prayer in this writ petition is seeking for a direction to forbear the first respondent from entering into the petitioner's land bearing survey No.36/5 measuring an extent of 0.80.0 hectare situated in Jaffarpet village, Gudiyatham Taluk and from disturbing the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the subject matter land was notified under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of providing house sites for Arundathiar. The petitioner challenged the land acquisition proceedings by filing the writ petition in W.P.No.18661 of 1993 and the same was dismissed on 8.8.2000. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the award should have been passed under Section 11(A) of the Land Acquisition Act within a period of two years from the date of dismissal of the writ petition. Thus, it is his contention that no such award has been passed so far and consequently, the entire land acquisition proceedings got lapsed. 3. The first respondent filed a counter affidavit and denied the contentions of the petitioner. 4. It is stated in the counter affidavit as follows: 4.1. Section 4(1) notification was issued in G.O.3D.No.814 Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 9.9.1991. It was gazetted on 30.10.1991. Further, 4(1) notification was published in the local dailies on 31.10.1991 and in the locality on 7.11.1991. Thereafter, the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act came to be made in G.O.3(D) No.589 A.D. & T.W. Department dated 24.8.1992. It was gazetted on 16.9.1992 and published in the local dailies on 19.9.1992 and in the locality on 21.9.1992. Thereafter, award enquiry notice was issued on the land owner by fixing the date of enquiry as 14.10.1993. The land owner received the notice on 21.9.1993 and appeared for the enquiry conducted on 14.10.1993. The land owner gave a statement that he got interim stay of dispossession in W.P.M.P.No.29157 of 1993 in W.P.No.18661 of 1993 on 13.10.1993 and therefore requested to stop the further proceedings. The above order has been received by the Special Tahsildar, Gudiyatham on 23.10.1993 and thereafter, a further notice was issued on 1.11.1993 fixing the date of enquiry as 15.11.1993. The said notice was also received by the petitioner on 16.11.1993. Thereafter, another notice fixing the date of enquiry on 20.12.1993 was sent to the petitioner. The above order has been received by the Special Tahsildar, Gudiyatham on 23.10.1993 and thereafter, a further notice was issued on 1.11.1993 fixing the date of enquiry as 15.11.1993. The said notice was also received by the petitioner on 16.11.1993. Thereafter, another notice fixing the date of enquiry on 20.12.1993 was sent to the petitioner. The same was received by the petitioner on 17.12.1993 but he failed to appear for the award enquiry. Thus, the award was passed in the award proceedings No.8/93-94 (Rc.A.891/90) dated 20.1.1994. A copy of the award proceedings had been sent to the land owner and the petitioner by R.P.A.D. on 20.1.1994. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 6. The only grievance of the petitioner, as could be culled out from the avernments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, is that the award is not passed within two years from the date of dismissal of his earlier writ petition. But the details furnished in the counter affidavit with regard to the dates and events would amply prove that the award was already passed on 20.1.1994 well within two years, as required under Section 11(A) of the said Act. As already noted above, Section 6 declaration came to be passed in G.O.3(D) No.589 A.D. & T.W. Department dated 24.8.1992 and gist of such publication was effected in the locality on 21.9.1992. Even if gist of such publication is taken as crucial date when the award was passed on 20.1.1994, the same is well within the time of two years and therefore, there is no basis for the petitioner to contend that no such award was passed. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that there are no merits in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs.