Judgment : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of declaration or any other order in the nature of a writ of declaration declaring that the land acquisition proceedings in respect of 2.17 acres of land comprised in S.No.34/3 in Kondichettipatty Village belonging to the petitioner have lapsed in view of Section 11(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 2. Acquisition proceedings were initiated for acquiring 2.17 acres of land comprised in S.No.34/3 in Kondichettipatty Village, Namakkal Taluk along with other lands for the construction of houses under Namakkal Neighbourhood Scheme and a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 came to be issued on 04.01.1983 and the same was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 26.01.1983. On service of notice under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, the petitioner raised objections on the ground that he had put up a tiled house and a thatched house with a Well to which a 5 HP Electric Motor Pumpset has been attached and he was residing there. Based on the above said particulars, he raised an objection for the proposed acquisition for providing houses under the Namakkal Neighbourhood Scheme. However, the second respondent (Land Acquisition Officer), rejecting his objection, proceeded further by submitting a draft declaration to the Government for the acquisition of the said land. The draft declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was approved by the Government under G.O.Ms.No.704, Housing and Urban Development department dated 18.07.1985. The same was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.11487 of 1985. Hon'ble Justice Mohan, Judge of this Court (as he then was), after hearing the said writ petition passed an order directing the District Collector, Salem to make a personal inspection and find out whether the construction put up by the petitioner would, in any way, interfered with the alignment of the housing scheme for which the land was proposed to be acquired and submit a report to the Government recommending that the petitioner should be permitted to retain the houses and for acquisition of the remaining land of the petitioner alone in case the Collector would find that the construction put by the petitioner would not interfere with the alignment of the housing scheme. Pursuant to the said order of the High Court dated 20.11.1985, the then District Collector, Selam made a personal inspection of the property and submitted a report to the Government stating that the tiled house, thatched house and the well fitted with 5 HP motor occupy an area measuring 23 cents and leaving the said area alone with the petitioner, would not interfere with the alignment of the housing scheme and that hence leaving 23 cents, remaining extent of 1.94 acres may be acquired. 3. The report of the collector made after such personal inspection in the presence of the petitioner was to the effect that the built up area measuring 23 cents alone might be excluded from acquisition and the remaining extent of 1.97 acres might be acquired. In the very same report, besides making such a recommendation, the District Collector had also stated that he would send the necessary amended draft declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act giving effect to the above said recommendation. However, based on the above said report of the District Collector submitted in accordance with the direction issued by this Court, no order was passed by the Government. But the Land Acquisition Officer, namely the second respondent, proceeded with the acquisition proceedings by issuing notice under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 requiring the persons interested in the property to give statements showing the nature of their interest and the amount of compensation they expected for such interest and also their objections, if any to the measurements made. 4. Pursuant to the issuance of the said notice dated 06.07.1987, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.7764 of 1987, challenging the said notice under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Act and praying for quashing the said notice dated 06.07.1987 and also seeking a direction to the first respondent to give effect to the report of the District Collector dated 30.12.1985 to exclude 23 cents of land in S.No.34/3, Kondichettipatty Village, Namakkal Taluk from the acquisition proceedings. The said writ petition came to be heard by Hon'ble Justice Jayarama Chouta, Judge of this Court and disposed of by order dated 10.02.1997. The said writ petition came to be heard by Hon'ble Justice Jayarama Chouta, Judge of this Court and disposed of by order dated 10.02.1997. In the said order, his Lordship Justice Jayarama Chouta directed that out of 2.17 acres comprised in S.No.34/3 belonging to the petitioner, the built up area measuring 23 cents should be excluded by giving effect to the report of the District Collector and that in respect of the balance extent of land, the respondents could proceed in accordance with law after giving an opportunity to the petitioner. In the meanwhile, an award came to be passed on 03.08.1987 in Award No.3/87-88. Though the passing of the said award was projected as a ground of defence in W.P.No.7764 of 1987, this Court chose to allow the writ petition and quash the notice dated 06.07.1987 issued under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act. 5. Contending that the quashing of the said notice will have the effect of automatic declaration of the award null and void, the petitioner has now contended that the respondents thereafter did not issue any fresh declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act excluding 23 cents as directed by this Court in its order dated 10.02.1987 made in W.P.No.7764 of 1987; that the respondents also failed to pursue the acquisition proceedings from the stage of 4(1) notification, that on the other hand, in the second week of August 2007, simply relying on the award dated 03.08.1987 and the officials of the third respondent and the Revenue Department required the petitioner, to hand over possession of the entire extent of 2.17 acres comprised in S.No.34/3 as if the entire land was acquired and that, such an act on the part of the respondents is quite illegal and against law, the petitioner has sought for a declaration that the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the issuance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 04.01.1983 has lapsed since further proceedings have not been issued within the time stipulated in the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 6. 6. The respondents have filed a counter contending that an award came to be passed as early as on 03.08.1987 and in view of the exclusion of 23 cents from the acquisition proceedings based on the report of the Collector as per the direction of this Court, the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.5,79,505/-towards development charges for his retention of the said land; that the petitioner, without making payment of development charges as per the demand, proceeded with the construction of a building in the said extent of 23 cent and also put up a compound wall enclosing the entire extent of 2.17 acres comprised in S.No.34/3 and that the said Act on the part of the petitioner was a high handed act in defiance of the authority of the respondents. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit that a sum of Rs.1,76,856/-, being the compensation awarded for the said land of 2.17 acres, has been deposited in the Sub-Court, Namakkal since the Land Acquisition Officer could not decide the ownership of the land. With the above said contention, the respondents have prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition. 7. The arguments advanced by Mr. R. Subramanian, learned counsel for the petitioner and by Mr. M.S. Ramesh, learned Additional Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents were heard. Writ petition, counter affidavit and the documents produced in the form of typed-set of papers were also perused. 8. Despite repeated directions, the respondents have not produced the relevant files for the perusal of the Court. Hence, this Court is constrained to pass an order after considering the rival submissions made on both sides and the documents produced by the petitioner in the form of typed-set of papers. 9. The present writ petition is an example of bureaucratic arrogance disregarding the orders of the High Court and repeatedly driving the petitioner to approach the Court for redressal of his grievances. The petitioner whose land comprised in S.No.34/3 in Kondichettipatty Village was haunted by the demon like attitude of the officers who dealt with the proceedings for acquiring the above said land of the petitioner. The petitioner whose land comprised in S.No.34/3 in Kondichettipatty Village was haunted by the demon like attitude of the officers who dealt with the proceedings for acquiring the above said land of the petitioner. Such an apathy and high handed attitude towards the orders of the Court will be seen from the fact that the Land Acquisition Officer was not even prepared to pay the compensation amount fixed for the land of the petitioner to the petitioner and on the other hand, chose to deposit the same in the Court on an invented inability to decide the title to the property. All along, it was the petitioner, who alone fought against the acquisition proceedings in respect of his land extending 2.17 acres comprised in S.No.34/3 in Kondichettipatty Village, Namakkal Taluk. There is nothing to show that there was another person staking a claim or claiming to be interested in respect of the above said property. Admittedly, the petitioner is the person who was shown to be the owner of the property and the person in possession of the property as per the revenue records. That being so, the fact that the Land Acquisition Officer chose to state in his award that he was not able to decide the person having the title/interest in respect of the property for making payment of compensation fixed for the same, will show to what extent the Land Acquisition Officer was biased against the petitioner. In multiplication of the agony to which the petitioner was subjected, he was directed by the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 5,79,505/- as development charges for the retention of 23 cents out of the total extent of 2.17 acres belonging to him on the premise that he had to proportionately bear the development changes for the development made to the adjacent properties acquired for the purpose of housing scheme. It shall be worth to mention that the total amount of compensation for the entire extent of 2.17 acres fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer was only Rs.1,76,856/-. This Court directed exclusion of 23 cents out of 2.17 acres from the acquisition proceedings. When a portion of the property is excluded from the acquisition proceedings, the Government or the requisitioning body shall have no iota of justification in seeking contribution towards development charges proportionate to the area excluded from the acquisition. This Court directed exclusion of 23 cents out of 2.17 acres from the acquisition proceedings. When a portion of the property is excluded from the acquisition proceedings, the Government or the requisitioning body shall have no iota of justification in seeking contribution towards development charges proportionate to the area excluded from the acquisition. The claim of development charges for the area excluded from the acquisition as per the order of the Court will no doubt amount to flouting the order of the Court since the same will amount to inclusion of the said area also in the acquisition proceedings and release of the same to the owner subsequently subject to his payment of the improvement charges. 10. It is not the case of the respondents that pursuant to the acquisition proceedings, possession of the land of the petitioner was taken and funds were utilized for improving the land and that is the reason why, the petitioner is asked to compensate the Government for the improvements made by the Government. On the other hand, it is crystal clear from the pleadings of the parties and the records that the said sum of Rs. 5,79,505/- was claimed as a contribution for the development made to the rest of the lands concerned in the acquisition proceedings excluding the petitioner's land. Therefore, such a demand has to be held as highly unreasonable and one made with a view to harass the petitioner and coerce him to give up his claim against the acquisition proceedings in respect of his land. The compensation awarded for 2.17 acres shall work out at Rs.815/- per cent. The total amount of compensation for 23 cents will come to Rs.18,745/-. The respondents have claimed Rs. 5,79,505/-for allowing the petitioner to retain that 23 cents. The same will be nearly equivalent to 31 times of the amount fixed as compensation for the said land. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner the same was done with a view to coerce him to retract from the challenge to acquisition proceedings made by him in the Court of law. 11. With the above introductory observations, the issues involved in this writ petition are dealt with in the succeeding paragraphs. 12. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner the same was done with a view to coerce him to retract from the challenge to acquisition proceedings made by him in the Court of law. 11. With the above introductory observations, the issues involved in this writ petition are dealt with in the succeeding paragraphs. 12. Tamil Nadu Housing Board prepared a Housing Scheme called Namakkal Neighbourhood Scheme and for the said scheme proposals for acquisition of 185.65 acres of patta lands in Kondichettipatty Village, Namakkal Taluk was sent to the Government. The land was sought to be acquired in several blocks and the petitioner's land was sought to be acquired in Block No.1 along with the neighbouring lands. In Block No.1, a total extent of 39.85 acres including the land of the petitioner was sought to be acquired. Thus, an extent of 2.17 acres of land comprised in S.No.34/3, of which the petitioner is the registered owner, was sought to be acquired along with more extent in the neighbouring survey numbers. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was approved by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.21, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 04.01.1983 and the same was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 26.01.1983. Paper publication were also issued. Subsequent to the publication of the notification under Section 4(1), enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act was conducted in which the petitioner raised an objection stating that since he was having a tiled house and a thatched house with Well fitted with 5 HP Electric Motor Pumpset in his property proposed to be acquired and was residing therein, the same should not be acquired by the Government for Housing Scheme. 13. Rejecting and overlooking his objection, declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was made. A draft declaration was sent to the Government for acquisition of 39.85 acres including 2.17 acres of the petitioner's land under Block 1 and the draft declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was approved by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.704, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 18.07.1985. The said declaration was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.11487 of 1985. The said declaration was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.11487 of 1985. Though the petitioner would have challenged the acquisition proceedings in respect of his entire land, he was very much concerned with 23 cents wherein he had put a tiled house, a thatched house with a well fitted with 5 HP Electric Motor Pumpset. His objection for the acquisition of the said portion of the land, which would involve demolition of his residential house, would be justified unless the exclusion of the said portion would interfere with the alignment of the housing scheme. As it was contended by the petitioner in the said writ petition that the exclusion of the said portion would not cause any hindrance to the alignment of the housing scheme for which acquisitions were sought to be made and the same was disputed by the officials, this Court directed the District Collector to make a personal inspection to find out whether the constructions put up by the petitioner would, in any way, interfere with the alignment of the scheme of housing for which the lands were proposed to be acquired. It was further directed that in case the Collector would come to the conclusion that the construction did not interfere with the alignment of the scheme, he would submit a report to the Government recommending exclusion of that portion so that the petitioner would retain it and recommend for the acquisition of the remaining land of the petitioner. In order to give an opportunity to make a representation against the report of the Collector in case such a report happened to be one against the interest of the petitioner, this Court directed the Collector to furnish a copy of his report to the petitioner. The operative part of the order passed in the said writ petition is extracted here under : "Except to state that the petitioner has put up a construction, insofar as the acquisition is for the purpose of housing, there is no justification for acquiring his house and demolishing it. Instead, it is prayed that an inspection may be caused to be made to find out whether the construction could remain notwithstanding the scheme in question. The learned Government Advocate states that it will cause hindrance to the alignment of the Scheme. Having regard to the disputed statements, the following directions are given to the Collector of Salem District. 1. Instead, it is prayed that an inspection may be caused to be made to find out whether the construction could remain notwithstanding the scheme in question. The learned Government Advocate states that it will cause hindrance to the alignment of the Scheme. Having regard to the disputed statements, the following directions are given to the Collector of Salem District. 1. He will make a personal inspection to find out whether the construction put up by the petitioner in any way interferes with the alignment of the scheme for housing for which the proposed lands are acquired. 2. The inspection shall be made after giving notice to the petitioner. 3. The inspection shall be completed on or before 31st of December 1985. 4. Should the Collector come to the conclusion that the construction does not interfere with the alignment of the scheme, he will submit a report to the Government recommending the retention of the house by the petitioner and the acquisition of the remaining land of the petitioner. He will furnish a copy of the report to the petitioner. The writ petition is ordered in the above terms. No costs." 14. A perusal of the above said order will show that in case the report of the Collector was to the effect that the construction made by the petitioner over the 23 cents of land would not cause hindrance to the alignment of the Housing Scheme, then the same would result in supersession of Section 6 Declaration requiring publication of an amended declaration. Suppose, the report would be against the petitioner, then, of course, the petitioner would have an opportunity of making a representation before the Government against such report and seeking exclusion of the 23 cents over which his constructions stood. In case the Government accepted his request, in that event also the earlier declaration under Section 6(1) would stand superseded and a fresh declaration under Section 6 would be necessary. In case the report of the Collector was against the petitioner and the same was also accepted by the Government rejecting the representation of the petitioner made before the Government when such opportunity was given, then the earlier declaration under Section 6 would remain unaffected and no fresh declaration need be made. In case the report of the Collector was against the petitioner and the same was also accepted by the Government rejecting the representation of the petitioner made before the Government when such opportunity was given, then the earlier declaration under Section 6 would remain unaffected and no fresh declaration need be made. In this case, pursuant to the orders of this Court, the District Collector, Salem made a personal inspection and submitted a report to the Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development, Chennai–9 in his proceedings in ROC.206640/83/B.4 dated 30.12.1985. In the said report, the District Collector has made the following recommendation : "As regards the writ petitioner's land, there is one tiled house, one thatched house one well fitted with 5 H.P Electric Motor Pumpset, which is on the other end of the land. In this case also, the built up area measuring 0.23 acres as against 2.17 acres, may alone be excluded from acquisition and the remaining extent of 1.94 acres may be acquired. I shall send necessary amendment notifications to the Draft Declaration under Section 6, approved in the Government orders second and fourth cited, through the special commissioner and commissioner of land administration, Madras on receipt of orders of the Government in the matter, copies of my notice of Inspection dated 25.12.1985 and the petitions given by the writ petitioners along with the sub-division records in original are enclosed. " 15. It is quite obvious from the above said report of the District Collector that the construction made over 23 cents of land out of 2.17 acres comprised in S.No.34/3 belonging to the petitioner did not cause hindrance to the alignment of the Housing Scheme for which the lands were sought to be acquired and the same was the reason why the District Collector submitted a report for exclusion of that 23 cents and acquisition of the balance extent of 1.94 acres. The District Collector was also very much aware of the fact that the exclusion of the said extent of land would require publication of an amended declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. However, the Government seem to have passed no order on the above said report of the District Collector, either accepting or rejecting it. The District Collector was also very much aware of the fact that the exclusion of the said extent of land would require publication of an amended declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. However, the Government seem to have passed no order on the above said report of the District Collector, either accepting or rejecting it. Surprisingly, either holding the silence on the part of the Government to be a rejection of the said report of the Collector or in ignorance of the said fact, the Land Acquisition Officer, namely the second respondent Tahsildar, chose to issue notice in Form 7 under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in his proceedings in Roc No.42/82 dated 06.07.1987. By issuing such a notice calling upon the persons interested to state/put in a statement in writing showing the nature of their interest, the amount of compensation they expected for such interest and the objections, if any to the measurements made. By issuing such a notice without a decision being taken on the report of the District Collector which was submitted in compliance with the direction of this Court, the petitioner was again driven to approach this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.7764 of 1987 challenging the notice issued in Form 7 under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act and praying for quashing the same. According to the respondents, an award was made in Award No.3/87-88 on 03.08.1987 and was pronounced on 13.08.1987 after the approval of the Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Administration Madras. Of course, the passing of the said award was set up as a ground of defence in the said writ petition, W.P.No.7764 of 1987. 16. It was also contended that it would not be correct to state that the Government did not pass any order considering the report of the Collector and on the other hand, the Government, after examination of the report of the Collector, rejected the recommendation of the Collector by the their Letter No.45763/S2/86-2 dated 31.07.1986. But the copy of the said letter has not been produced. It is an admitted fact that the copy of the said letter was not served on the petitioner. But the copy of the said letter has not been produced. It is an admitted fact that the copy of the said letter was not served on the petitioner. Apart from that, when report of the Collector was in favour of the petitioner, before taking a decision to reject the same, the petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity of being heard. Admittedly, no such opportunity was given to the petitioner. The very purpose of including a direction in the order of this Court dated 20.11.1985 made in W.P.No.11487 of 1985 was to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to make a representation before the Government in case the report of the Collector turned out to be one against the claim of the petitioner. That being so, the rejection of the recommendation made by the Collector in his report, by the Government without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to be heard, was totally against the spirit of the order of the Court and also against the principle of natural justice. That is the reason why this court, while disposing of W.P.No.7765 of 1987 rejected the contention of the Government that recommendation of the Collector was rejected and an award was passed as a plea of defence made in the said writ petition. Rejecting the said defence plea, this Court passed the order dated 10.02.1997 allowing W.P.No.7764 of 1987 whereby the notice issued in Form No.7 under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (dated 06.07.1987) came to be quashed. Quashing of the said notice will have the effect of nullifying the subsequent proceedings including the award. 17. In fact, by the said order dated 10.02.1997 made in W.P.No.7764 of 1987, this Court gave a clear and unambiguous direction to exclude 23 cents of land in S.No.34/3 occupied by the tiled house, thatched house and a Well fitted with 5 H.P Electric Motor Pumpset forming part of 2.17 acres comprised in the said survey number in Kondichettipatty Village, Namakkal Taluk. The order also clearly directed the first respondent to give effect to the report of the District Collector. The acceptance of the same would have resulted in nullifying the notification under Section 6 and making it necessary to issue an amended notification afresh for the acquisition of the balance extent of land comprised in S.No.34/3 after deducting the 23 cents. The order also clearly directed the first respondent to give effect to the report of the District Collector. The acceptance of the same would have resulted in nullifying the notification under Section 6 and making it necessary to issue an amended notification afresh for the acquisition of the balance extent of land comprised in S.No.34/3 after deducting the 23 cents. The order itself makes it clear that the authorities were free to proceed in accordance with law in respect of the balance extent, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order of this Court dated 20.11.1985 made in W.P.No.11487 of 1985 coupled with the order of this Court dated 10.02.1997 made in W.P.No.7764 of 1987 has nullified the acquisition proceedings subsequent to Section 4(1) notification, with liberty to the officials to proceed again from the stage subsequent to the publication of Section 4(1) notification in respect of 1.94 acres of the petitioner's land. In any event, the order of this Court dated 10.02.1997 made in W.P.No.7764 of 1987 has given a decent burial to the notice dated 06.07.1987 issued in Form 7 under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act and also to the award allegedly passed in Award No.3/87-88 dated 03.08.1987. 18. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that after the disposal of the Writ petition No.7764 of 1987, the time stipulated in Section 6(1) Proviso (ii) and the time stipulated in Section 11-A were not adhered to and hence, the acquisition proceedings stand abated by operation of law. Of course, there is no specific mention of Section 6(1) proviso (ii) in support of the prayer of the petitioner that the Land Acquisition Proceedings in respect of his land stand abated. But such a plea being a legal one, this Court permitted the learned counsel for the petitioner to raise it as a ground in support the petitioner's contention that the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the issuance of Section 4(1) notification in respect of 2.17 acres of land comprised in S.No.34/3 in Kondichettipatty Village, Namakkal Taluk belonging to the petitioner stand abated by efflux of time. Of course, in this case, notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act came to be issued prior to 24.09.1984 on which date the first proviso to Subsection 1 of Section 6 came into force as substituted by the amending Act LXVIII of 1984. Before amendment the limitation for publication of declaration under Section 6 was 3 years. By the said amendment it was reduced to one year. The amended Section 6(1) reads as follows : “6. Declaration that land is required for a public purpose.- (1) Subject to the provisions of Part VII of this Act, [when the [ appropriate Government] is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made under Section 5-A, sub-section (2)], that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, or for a company, a declaration shall be made to the effect under the signature of a Secretary to such Government or of some officer duly authorised to certify its order, and different declarations may be made, from time to time, in respect of different parcels of any land covered by the same notification under Section 4, sub-section (1), irrespective of whether one report or different reports has or have been made (wherever required) under Section 5-A, sub-section (2) : "[Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification under Section 4, sub-section (1) – (i) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967 (1 of 1967) but before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made after the expiry of three years from the date of the publication of the notification; or (ii) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made after the expiry of one year from the date of publication of the notification." Provided further that no such declaration shall be made unless the compensation to be awarded for such property is to be paid by a company, or wholly or partly out of public revenues or some fund controlled or managed by a local authority. 19. In this case, since the 4(1) notification was issued prior to the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1894, sub-clause (i) of the proviso alone shall apply and the limitation fixed therein is three years from the date of publication of the notification. In this case 4(1) notification was published on 26.01.1983. 19. In this case, since the 4(1) notification was issued prior to the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1894, sub-clause (i) of the proviso alone shall apply and the limitation fixed therein is three years from the date of publication of the notification. In this case 4(1) notification was published on 26.01.1983. Declaration under Section 6 approved by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.704, Housing and Urban Development department dated 18.07.1985 was published on 31.07.1985 and also on 04.08.1985. No doubt the said declaration was well within the time as per clause 1 to the proviso to Section 6(1). But it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the combined effect of the order of this Court made in W.P.No.11487 of 1985 and the order of this Court made in W.P.No.7764 of 1987 has the effect of nullifying the said declaration and that therefore, a fresh declaration ought to have been made within three years from the date of the order passed in W.P.No.7764 of 1987. The said order was passed on 10.02.1997. Admittedly no fresh declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued after 10.02.1997 till the date of filing of the present writ petition. Several three year periods have gone. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the acquisition proceedings started by the issuance of Notification under Section 4(1) dated 04.01.1983 shall stand abated by efflux of time stipulated in Section 6(1) proviso (i) of the Act. 20. Even assuming for argument sake that notice under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Act alone was quashed by the order of this Court dated 10.02.1997 made in W.P.No. 7764 of 1987 leaving all the proceedings prior to issuance of the said notice including Section 6 declaration untouched, still, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the land acquisition proceedings stand lapsed by virtue of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act. Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act provides as follows : “11-A - Period within which an award shall be made.- The Collector shall make an award under Section 11 within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse : Provided that in a case where the said declaration has been published before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, the award shall be made within a period of two years from such commencement. Explanation - In computing the period of two years referred to in this section, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the said declaration is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded.” 21. Admittedly, Section 6 declaration in this case was made only subsequent to the commencement of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Hence the award should have been made within two years thereafter. A meek attempt was made on behalf of the respondents to show that an award was actually passed on 03.08.1987 and hence the mischief of lapse of acquisition proceedings under Section 11-A does not get attracted in this case. It has been pointed out supra that notice under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act and all subsequent proceedings, including the award, stand nullified by order of this Court dated 10.02.1997 made in W.P.No.7764 of 1987. The explanation to Section 11-A will cover the period upto the date of passing of the order of this Court dated 10.02.1997. Still, it remains a fact that after the passing of the said order dated 10.02.1997, no award came to be passed till date. 22. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of the Court to the order of this Court dated 24.12.2003 made in W.P.No.5328 of 2000 filed by one Chinnasamy Gounder, a similarly situated person, interpreting an order passed in his favour in W.P.No.11037 of 1986 whereby the direction issued by the Government under Section 7 without excluding the portion (there 25 cents) occupied by his house was quashed. Interpreting the said order, Hon'ble Justice K.P. Sivasubramaniam has made the following observations : "Notwithstanding the orders of this Court in W.P.No.11037 of 1986, recently the petitioner came to know that the award had been passed on 02.09.1986 without complying with the directions of this Court in W.P.No.11488 of 1985 dated 20.11.1985 and the report of the Collector dated 30.12.1985. When once declaration under Section 7 of the Act was quashed, no award could have been made and even if an award had been passed it will have no effect". 23. Ultimately in the said case, the learned Judge held that the proceedings initiated subsequent to the publication of the declaration under Section 7 of the Act could not be held to be valid and such proceedings had to be set aside as invalid. It was also observed that the said order would mean that the petitioner was entitled to a proper notice for enquiry and for passing of an award excluding the extent of 25 cents. However, opportunity was given to the authorities to proceed afresh for passing the award in terms of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The said interpretation to the order of Justice Jayarama Chouta made in a similar petition filed by the said Chinnasamy Gounder squarely applies to the order passed in W.P.No.7764 of 1987. 24. After the passing of the order in W.P.No.7764 of 1987, award has not been passed within two years as contemplated under Section 11-A. Therefore, on that ground also, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land having an extent of 2.17 acres comprised in S.No.34/3 in Kondichettipatty Village, Namakkal Taluk shall stand lapsed. However, it shall be open to the Government to start the acquisition proceedings afresh by issuing a fresh notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 if they still want to proceed with the acquisition of the petitioner's land comprised in S.No.34/3. However, it shall be open to the Government to start the acquisition proceedings afresh by issuing a fresh notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 if they still want to proceed with the acquisition of the petitioner's land comprised in S.No.34/3. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and it is hereby declared that the Land Acquisition Proceedings initiated by the issuance of the notification dated 04.01.1983 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for the acquisition of 2.17 acres of land comprised in S.No.34/3, Kondichettipatty Village, Namakkal Taluk stand lapsed and that in case the Government wants to proceed with the acquisition of the said property, it shall be at liberty to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings by issuing a fresh notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.