Judgment : 1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.524/1994 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Thalassery, is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the decree and judgment dated 30.6.2000 in the said suit. The appellant died on 5.4.2003. Additional appellants 2 to 6 and supplemental respondents 3 to 9 impleaded are the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff, C.K.P.Moosakeyi. Additional appellants 2 to 6 are the petitioners in W.P.(C).No.15637/2012 and other legal heirs are arrayed as respondents 5 to 11 in the writ petition. O.S.No.524/1994 was filed for injunction, both perpetual and mandatory and for recovery of possession. The court below held that the plaint schedule property vest with the Government and the remedy available to the plaintiff is only to claim for damages and compensation. The court below held that in view of Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and the decisions cited in the judgment, the plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs claimed in the plaint. The suit was dismissed with costs. 2. The defendants in the suit are Thalassery Municipality and Special Tahsildar (LA), Thalassery. Respondents 1 to 4 in W.P.(C).No.15637/2012 are the Thalassery Municipality, Secretary, Thalassery Municipality, Special Tahsildar (LA) and State of Kerala. The parties hereinafter are referred to as plaintiff and defendants as arrayed in the suit. 3. The suit and the writ petition relate to the acquisition of land from the plaintiff C.K.P.Moosakeyi in the year 1982. As per the request of the Thalassery Municipality, the Special Tahsildar (LA) issued notification under Section 3(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of an extent of 1.39 acres of land in different survey numbers including 41 cents of land owned by the plaintiff for the formation of road and rehabilitation of persons who are dispossessed by the Municipality, while acquiring land for some other purposes. Taking into account the purpose of acquisition and the request made by the 1st defendant Municipality, C.K.P.Moosakeyi gave advance possession of 41 cents to the Government. While giving advance possession it is stated by him that he is entitled to get compensation and interest from the date of handing over possession i.e., from 7.10.1983. 80% compensation amount was not paid to the plaintiff at the time of taking possession of the property under acquisition. Section 5(A) enquiry was conducted and draft declaration was sent to the Board of Land Revenue for approval. 80% compensation amount was not paid to the plaintiff at the time of taking possession of the property under acquisition. Section 5(A) enquiry was conducted and draft declaration was sent to the Board of Land Revenue for approval. The Board of Land Revenue approved the draft declaration and published in the Kerala Gazette dated 3.12.1985. Thereafter award enquiry notices were served to the parties and enquiry conducted on 23.7.1987 and completed on 29.8.1987. Draft award was approved by the District Collector, Kannur on 23.11.1987, fixing the proposed date of award on 30.11.1987. But the award was not passed, since the requisitioning authority, namely, Thalassery Municipality, did not make available the required funds and hence the entire land acquisition proceedings lapsed. Though land acquisition proceedings was lapsed, the defendants did not take any steps to re-convey the land to the plaintiff. The proceedings was not completed and no award was passed. In the circumstance, plaintiff filed O.P.No.12336/1992 before this Court praying for a direction to the Thalassery Municipality to re-convey the property and to pay value of the land and in the alternative to take steps for fresh acquisition. When the writ petition was taken up for hearing on 14.10.1993, the learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted that steps have already been taken for acquisition and fresh notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act had already been published on 23.6.1993. The learned Government Pleader also submitted that the acquisition proceedings will be completed and award will be passed without delay. The submission was recorded by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 2 of the judgment. The said O.P was disposed of directing the Special Tahsildar (LA), Thalassery, to complete the proceedings for acquisition and pass an award within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Ext.P3 in the writ petition is the copy of the judgment in O.P.No.12336/1992. The writ appeal No.1374/1993 filed by the plaintiff was disposed of by the Division Bench confirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge and allowed the land acquisition proceedings initiated on 23.6.1993 to go on. The Division Bench reserved the right of the appellant to raise the two contentions left open to be decided before a civil court or any other forum. The Division Bench reserved the right of the appellant to raise the two contentions left open to be decided before a civil court or any other forum. Thalassery Municipality revised the proposal and proposed acquisition for a lesser extent, namely, 60.76 cents of land for the formation of the road only. On the basis of the said proposal, Section 4(1) notification was published in Kerala Gazette Notification No.670 dated 23.6.1993 and in Deshabhimani daily dated 24.6.1993 and Mathrubhumi daily dated 26.6.1993. Section 6 notification under Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act in the Kerala Gazette was also published on 26.10.1993. Finding that the purpose shown in the requisition and that mentioned in the resolution of the Municipality were not similar, the department obtained another proposal on 15.12.1993 from the Municipality and fresh notification was published in the Kerala Gazette dated 11.1.1994 and dailies dated 2.1.1994 and 4.1.1994. Since the period of six months allowed by the High Court to pass award expired on 17.5.1994, the Department moved for extension of time and this Court allowed extension of time for six months from 17.5.1994 to announce the award. Pursuant to the notification under Section 4 (1) dated 11.1.1994, Section 4(a) notice was issued and objections were received from 13 persons. The said notice is marked as Ext.P5 in the writ petition. 5(A) enquiry was conducted on 4.7.1994 and completed by 16.7.1994. Though this Court allowed extension of time for six months from 17.5.1994 to announce the award, no award was passed till date. It appears that the Government dropped the proposal. Thus, latest notification published in the Kerala Gazette dated 11.1.1994 also lapsed. The reason is that the requisitioning authority did not make available the required funds. The 41 cents of land taken possession by the Tahsildar on 7.10.1983 continued to be in possession of the Thalassery Municipality. In the notification dated 11.1.1994, only 20 cents of the property belonging to the plaintiff was included. The balance 21 cents of property was not included in the said notification. But the entire 41 cents of property continued to be in possession of the defendants. 4. In the written statement filed by the Municipality it is admitted that the land acquisition proceedings was initiated and advance possession of 41 cents of property belonging to the plaintiff was taken on 7.10.1983. But the entire 41 cents of property continued to be in possession of the defendants. 4. In the written statement filed by the Municipality it is admitted that the land acquisition proceedings was initiated and advance possession of 41 cents of property belonging to the plaintiff was taken on 7.10.1983. It is admitted that from 1983 onwards, the Municipality is in possession of the plaint schedule property and that due to lack of funds, acquisition proceedings got lapsed. It is contended that the plaintiff has absolutely no right over 30 cents of land given free of cost to the Municipality and that the plaintiff had executed a relinquishment deed on 25.1.1989. It is further stated that the plaint schedule property includes 30 cents of property given free of cost to the Municipality and so the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief claimed in the suit. In the additional written statement it is pleaded that the claim of the plaintiff for recovery of possession is not maintainable in law, that the claim for recovery is time barred and that the plaintiff is estopped from recovery of possession of the property. According to the said defendant, the only remedy available to the plaintiff is to sue for the land value and damages, if any, under the Land Acquisition Act, in case the Land Acquisition Officer did not complete the proceedings. 5. The Special Tahsildar (LA), Thalassery, who is the 2nd defendant, in his written statement stated that the acquisition proceedings was initiated at the request of the Thalassery Municipality for the formation of a road connecting OV road with new bus stand and for rehabilitation. It is also stated that the land belonging to the plaintiff measuring 40.5 cents were taken in advance possession on 7.10.1983 by this defendant and handed over it to the Municipality. It is also pleaded that since the Municipality did not provide the funds, the entire land acquisition proceedings got lapsed during the year 1987. Subsequently, land acquisition proceedings was initiated for acquiring the plaintiff's property measuring 20.25 cents and that the plaint schedule property is not included in the 2nd acquisition proceedings since the 1st defendant contended that the property was surrendered to the Municipality free of cost by the plaintiff. Subsequently, land acquisition proceedings was initiated for acquiring the plaintiff's property measuring 20.25 cents and that the plaint schedule property is not included in the 2nd acquisition proceedings since the 1st defendant contended that the property was surrendered to the Municipality free of cost by the plaintiff. The 2nd defendant also contended that the second land acquisitions proceedings initiated was also lapsed and that this defendant was not in a position to announce the award since the Municipality did not provide the funds required to meet the land acquisition charges. 6. The Department discontinued the acquisition proceedings initiated during the period 1982-83. Admittedly, the acquisition proceedings thus initiated was lapsed. Fresh notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued in 1993 and 1994 for acquisition including 20 cents belonging to the plaintiff. In the said proceedings 21 cents was left out. The said 21 cents is the subject matter of the suit and balance 20 cents is the subject matter of the writ petition. The prayer in the writ petition is to re-convey the 20 cents of land which is covered under the notification dated 11.1.1994 and in the alternative directing the respondents 1 to 4 to pay compensation with interest and damages with effect from 7.10.1983 in respect of the land covered under the said notification. 7. The evidence in the suit consists of the oral testimony of DW1, Exts.A1 to A9 and B1 to B21. The trial court found that advance possession of the property was taken by the Government on 7.10.1983 invoking Section 17 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act and so the plaintiff cannot be held to say that he is still having title to the property. The court also found that the Municipality failed to prove that the plaintiff had executed a relinquishment deed as contended whereby the plaintiff gave free surrender of 30 cents of land to the Municipality. The court held that in the absence of any evidence adduced by the Municipality to prove the same, their contention that the property was given free of cost in 1983 cannot be entertained at all. The court also held that the property vest in the Government and the remedy available to the plaintiff is only to claim for damages and compensation and hence the suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of possession on the strength of title cannot be entertained at all. The court also held that the property vest in the Government and the remedy available to the plaintiff is only to claim for damages and compensation and hence the suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of possession on the strength of title cannot be entertained at all. The suit was dismissed with costs. Decision was arrived at by the court below on the basis of the principles laid down in the decisions of the Apex Court and High Court in 1993 (4) SCC 369 , 1989 (1) KLJ 107 and 1989 (2) KLT 23. 8. It is admitted that the suit property of 21 cents and 20 cents involved in the writ petition belongs to the plaintiff. It is admitted by the defendants that the entire 41 cents of land was the subject matter of acquisition initiated in the year 1983 for the formation of road and for rehabilitation of persons who are dispossessed by the Municipality. It is admitted that 41 cents of property belonging to the plaintiff was taken advance possession on 7.10.1983. It is admitted that due to lack of funds the original acquisition proceedings got lapsed and therefore discontinued. It is again admitted that fresh land acquisition proceedings was initiated for acquisition of land which includes only 20 cents belonging to the plaintiff by publishing a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in the year 1993 and 1994. It is admitted that declaration under Section 6 of the Act and the award were not passed though Section 4(1) notification has been published in the year 1994. It is admitted that the 2nd land acquisition proceedings initiated was also lapsed due to the fact that Municipality did not provide funds. It is also admitted that property taken in advance possession on 7.10.1983 by the Special Tahsildar on behalf of the Government was handed over to the Thalassery Municipality and the Thalassery Municipality continued to possess and enjoy the property from the said date. 9. The following facts emerge on the facts, evidence, plaint, written statement and the counter affidavit filed by the Special Tahsildar in the suit and in the writ petition. Notification was issued under Section 3(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (before the Land Acquisition Amendment Act of 1984) in the year 1982. The property belonging to the plaintiff and some others with improvements and structures was taken in advance possession on 7.10.1983. Notification was issued under Section 3(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (before the Land Acquisition Amendment Act of 1984) in the year 1982. The property belonging to the plaintiff and some others with improvements and structures was taken in advance possession on 7.10.1983. Section 5(A) enquiry was conducted. The Board of Land revenue approved the draft declaration and published in Kerala Gazette dated 3.12.1985. Award enquiry notices were served to the parties and award enquiry was conducted on 23.7.1987 and completed by 29.8.1987. The draft award was approved by the District Collector, Kannur on 23.11.1987 fixing the proposed date of award as 30.11.1987. No award was passed since the Thalassery Municipality did not make available the required funds. The entire land acquisition proceedings lapsed. The Municipal Commissioner as per letter dated 16.6.1993 submitted fresh proposal for the acquisition of lesser extent. The extent is only 60.76 cents. The purpose is restricted for the formation of road only. On the basis of the requisition, Section 4(1) notification was published in the Kerala Gazette No.670 dated 23.6.1993. Section 6 notification under the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act was published in the Kerala Gazette dated 26.10.1993. In the meanwhile, in the original petition filed by the plaintiff, this Court directed the Land Acquisition Officer to complete the land acquisition proceedings and pass an award within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment in O.P.No.12336/1992 dated 14.10.1993. In the counter affidavit filed it is stated that subsequently, it was found that the purpose shown in the requisition and that mentioned in the resolution of the Municipality was not similar and hence fresh requisition was obtained on 15.12.1993 and a fresh 4(1) notification was issued in the Kerala Gazette dated 11.1.1994. Section 4(a) notice was also issued. This Court granted extension of time from six months on 17.5.1994 to announce the award in a petition moved by the Government. Section 5 (A) enquiry was conducted on 4.7.1994 and completed by 16.7.1994. The proceedings initiated afresh by the publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 11.1.1994 ends there with no further proceedings even though this Court directed the authorities to complete the proceedings and pass an award within a period of six months. 10. The principles of law governing the acquisition of land in the given circumstances are well settled. 10. The principles of law governing the acquisition of land in the given circumstances are well settled. The Apex court in Satendra Prasad Jain and others v. State of U.P and others reported in 1993(4) SCC 369 ( AIR 1993 SC 2517 ) held as follows: “Government could not withdraw from acquisition under Section 48 once it had taken possession of the land under Section 17. When Section 17(1) is applied by reason of urgency, Government takes possession of the land prior to the making of the award under Section 11 and thereupon the owner is divested of the title to the land which is vested in the Government. In ordinary case, however, when Government fails to make an award within two years of the declaration under Section 6, the land has still not vested in the Government and its title remains with the owner, the acquisition proceedings are still pending and, by virtue of the provisions of Section 11A lapse. Clearly, Section 11A can have no application to cases of acquisitions under Section 17 because the lands have already vested in Government and there is no provision in the Act by which land statutorily vested in the Government can revert to the owner. Section 17(3)(A) postulates that the owner will be offered an amount equivalent to 80% of the estimated compensation for the land before the Government takes possession of it under Section 17(1). Section 11A cannot be so construed as to leave the Government holding title to the land without the obligation to determine compensation, make an award and pay to the owner the difference between the amount of the award and the amount of 80% of the estimated compensation”. 11. In the decision reported in G.Gnanesha and others v. Special Deputy Collector, LA(General) and others ( AIR 1994 AP 346 ) following the decision reported in Satendra Prasad Jain and others case (supra) held as follows: “The provisions of Section 11A of the Act are intended to the benefit of the land owners and ensure that the award is made within a period of two years from the date of Section 6 declaration. Cases where subsection (1) of Section 17 is invoked and possession is taken which leads to vesting of the land in the Government are distinguishable. Cases where subsection (1) of Section 17 is invoked and possession is taken which leads to vesting of the land in the Government are distinguishable. Section 11A can have no application to cases of acquisitions under Section 17 because the lands have already vested in the Government and there is no provision in the said Act by which land statutorily vested in the Government can revert to the owner. Thus, where possession of lands was already taken over by the Government under requisition and Acquisition Act and years thereafter the lands were acquired by invoking Section 17 of Land Acquisition Act, it was not right for the Collector to have advised the Special Deputy Collector to not to pass award unless funds were received till last day of limitation prescribed under Section 11A”. Andhra Pradesh High Court also held that there is no provision in the Act which precludes the award from being passed if funds for payment of compensation as per the award are not made available to the Land Acquisition Officer. 12. In the decision reported in M/s. Delhi Airtech Services Pvt.Ltd. & others v. State of U.P & another ( AIR 2012 SC 573 ) the Apex Court held as follows: “The requirement of payment of compensation under Section 17(3)(A) is in the nature 0f condition precedent clamped by the statute before taking possession under emergency acquisition by the State. The vesting contemplated either under Section 17(1) or 17(2) is conditioned upon payment mandated under Section 17(3)(A). This is clear from the opening words of Section 17(3)(A) namely, “before taking possession of any land either under subsection (1) or (2), Collector shall tender payment”.” “The emergency provisions of the statute which empowers the State to acquire land by dispensing with the provisions of making an enquiry is a drastic provision. Therefore, when that right is taken away and the land is acquired by invoking the emergency provision of Section 17(3)(A) to hold that even the safeguards provided under Section 17(3)(A) are not mandatory and taking over of possession without complying with the provisions of Section 17(3)(A) is not illegal is to overlook the clear provisions of the Act and come to a finding which is contrary to the Act”. The case was referred to a larger Bench to resolve the divergent views expressed in the judgment and to answer the question in view of the divergent opinion on conclusion of various legal questions. 13. The court below held that where advance possession was taken under Section 17(1) of the Act, the land vest in the Government and the remedy available to the party is to get compensation and damages from the Government. Following the decision reported in Satendra Prasad Jain and others (supra) the court below held that even in cases where Sections 17 (3) and 3(A) are not complied that will not make advance possession an illegal one and therefore, it cannot be contended that the land is not vested in the Government under Section 17(1). The learned Judge observed that when such vesting is made with the Government, the land owner cannot contend that he is having valid title to the property. It was also viewed that when once the land is vested in the Government under Section 17(1), the land owner has no right to claim re-conveyance of the property. The court below held that; “In view of Section 17(1) of the Act and the decisions cited by me above, I have no hesitation to hold that the plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs claimed in the suit”. 14. The court below committed a fundamental mistake leading to erroneous conclusions that led to the dismissal of the suit. The facts of the case were wrongly read and erroneous conclusions are arrived at. The principles of law are correctly stated by the court below. If the facts stated by the court below is correct, the conclusions are also correct and therefore, no interference should have been possible. The court below rightly held that when once advance possession is taken under Section 17(1), the plaintiff is divested with title to the property and thereafter the property exclusively vest in the Government free of cost and encumbrances and so in cases where Section 17(1) is applied, irrespective of the fact that land acquisition proceedings is completed or not, the property vest absolutely with the Government. 15. The principles of law followed by the court below governs the field. The question is as to whether the said principles of law can be applied to the facts of this case. 15. The principles of law followed by the court below governs the field. The question is as to whether the said principles of law can be applied to the facts of this case. In this case, notifications were issued thrice for acquisition of the properties including that of the plaintiff. The first notification under Section 3(1) was in the year 1982. Section 5A enquiry, declaration under Section 6, award enquiry and finally draft award was approved by the District Collector, but no award was passed. Since requisitioning authorities did not make available the required funds, the entire land acquisition proceedings lapsed. Again notification under Section 4(1) was published in the Kerala Gazette on 23.6.1993. Noting certain defects, that notification was given a go by. Fresh requisition was obtained and fresh notification was published in the Kerala Gazette on 11.1.1994. Tahsildar issued Section 4(a) notice, objections were received from 13 persons, Section 5(A) enquiry was conducted on 4.7.1994 and completed by 16.7.1994. Thereafter proceedings discontinued. In the written statement filed by the defendants they have no case that the acquisition proceedings were initiated invoking emergency provisions. I have perused the documents filed by the defendants. The first notification was a plain notification under Section 3(1). Second and third notifications were also plain notifications under Section 4(1). At no point of time, the Government has taken any decision to acquire the land invoking the emergency clause and dispensing with Section 5(A) enquiry. No notification was published under Section 17(1) r/w 17(4) of the Act. In normal acquisition the vesting of acquired property in the State pre-supposes compliance with two conditions. First there has to be an award under Section 11 and then there has to be taking over of possession. Only thereupon, the land shall vest absolutely in the State, free from all encumbrances under Section 16 of the Act. When Section 17(1) is applied by reason of urgency, the Government takes possession of the land prior to the making of award under Section 11 and thereupon the owner is divested of the title to the land which is vested in the Government. In cases where the Government fails to make an award within two years of the declaration under Section 6, the land has still not vested in the Government, its title remains with the owner and by virtue of the provisions of Section 11A the acquisition proceedings lapse. In cases where the Government fails to make an award within two years of the declaration under Section 6, the land has still not vested in the Government, its title remains with the owner and by virtue of the provisions of Section 11A the acquisition proceedings lapse. Section 11A can have no application to cases of acquisitions under Section 17 because the lands have already vested in the Government and there is no provision in the said Act by which land statutorily vested in the Government can revert to the owner. In this case, after issuing notifications under Section 4(1) without invoking the emergency clause section 4(a) notice was issued to the parties, objections were received and Section 5(A) enquiry was conducted. Since the Government failed to make award under Section 16 of the Act the land has still not vested in the Government and its title remains with the owner. Acquisition proceedings lapsed several years back. Moreover, in O.P.No.12336/1992, finding that the Government failed to pass an award, this Court directed to complete the land acquisition proceedings and pass the award within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment by judgment dated 14.10.1993. The said direction was also not complied with. In these circumstances, the finding entered by the court below that advance possession of the property was taken by the Government on 7.10.1983 invoking Section 17(1) of the Act and so, the land vests in the Government is illegal. 16. The extent of property sought to be acquired as per Section 4(1) notification dated 11.1.1994 is 20 cents. The balance extent of 21 cents belonging to the plaintiff was retained by the Municipality without handing over possession to the owner. The entire 41 cents of land is still in the possession of the Municipality. No proceedings have been continued. No award has been passed in respect of 20 cents covered under Section 4 (1) notification dated 11.1.1994. The said property remains with the Municipality. The said property was not utilised for the formation of the road and it is remaining vacant. At the same time, Municipality converted the un-acquired 21 cents into a road. Thus, the Municipality is now not in a position to re-convey the land which is the subject matter of the suit. End result is that the owner of the land is deprived of both properties. At the same time, Municipality converted the un-acquired 21 cents into a road. Thus, the Municipality is now not in a position to re-convey the land which is the subject matter of the suit. End result is that the owner of the land is deprived of both properties. Since the un-acquired 21 cents of land is utilised for the formation of the road, this court is not in a position to issue direction to re-convey the said land. At the same time, the Municipality is also holding the land covered under the lapsed Section 4(1) notification, the same was not utilised for the formation of the road and is remaining with the Municipality. 17. The entire land including the portion notified is illegally retained by the defendants. The owner of the land is deprived of his properties without the authority of law. On the above premise, taking over possession of land belonging to the plaintiff, retaining the same without passing an award and payment of compensation, is clearly illegal and is in clear violation of the statutory provisions which automatically violates the constitutional right to property protected under Article 300(A) of the Constitution. The contention of the Municipality that the property was given free of cost in 1983 was found to be not true. The Municipality did not file any cross objection challenging the said findings. No argument was addressed by the Municipality during the course of final hearing. Hence the finding has become final. 18. The land in dispute was taken possession not pursuant to a notification under Section 17(1). Therefore, the land is not vested in the Government. In the present case, neither the Government nor the Collector are empowered to take possession of the land before passing the award and before completing the formalities prescribed under Sections 9, 11 and 16 of the Act. The Collector has got power to take possession of the land only after passing the award under Section 11. Section 16 mandates that when the Collector has made an award under Section 11, he may take possession of the land, which shall thereupon absolutely vest in the Government free from all encumbrances. The provisions clearly indicate that the land acquisition authorities have the right to take advance possession of a land only by invoking the emergency clause. Section 16 mandates that when the Collector has made an award under Section 11, he may take possession of the land, which shall thereupon absolutely vest in the Government free from all encumbrances. The provisions clearly indicate that the land acquisition authorities have the right to take advance possession of a land only by invoking the emergency clause. Even if the property is offered by the owner before passing of the award, there is no provision in the Act enabling the Collector to take possession of the land. Notes and resolutions produced by the Municipality in the suit clearly indicate that they wanted to take over immediate possession of the land. Thus taking over possession of land without complying with the retirements under Section 17(1) of the Act is clearly illegal. Justice Ashok Kumar Ganguly in paragraph 74 of the decision reported in M/s. Delhi Airtech Services Pvt.Ltd. & others v. State of U.P & another held as follows: “This Court further holds that in all cases of emergency acquisition under Section 17, the requirement of payment under Section 17(3A) must be complied with. As the provisions of Section 17(1) and Section 17(2) cannot be worked out without complying with requirement of payment under Section 17(3A) which is in the nature of condition precedent. If Section 17 (3A) is not complied with, the vesting under Section 17(1) and Section 17 (2) cannot take place. Therefore, emergency acquisition without complying with Section 17(3A) is illegal. This is the plain intention of the statute which must be strictly construed. Any other construction, in my opinion, would lead to diluting the Rule of Law”. 19. Coming to the question of relief in the instant case, the court has to take note of fact situation. Admittedly, possession of 41 cents of land has been taken by the Government and the same has been handed over to the beneficiary. 21 cents was utilised for the construction of the road. It is difficult to put the hands of the clock back now, despite the declaration of law by this Court. This Court, therefore, has to think in terms of adequately compensating the plaintiff. In the special facts of the case, compensation in respect of the land belonging to the plaintiff cannot be decided on the basis of the notification under Section 4(1) dated 11.1.1994 at this distance of time. 20. This Court, therefore, has to think in terms of adequately compensating the plaintiff. In the special facts of the case, compensation in respect of the land belonging to the plaintiff cannot be decided on the basis of the notification under Section 4(1) dated 11.1.1994 at this distance of time. 20. The property covered under the notification dated 11.1.1994 is not utilised by the beneficiary and the land acquisition proceedings lapsed long back. The beneficiary's possession is unlawful and highhanded. The beneficiary has no right to retain the property with it. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to seek re-conveyance of the property covered under Section 4(1) notification. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the property was taken possession in the year 1983 and the land owners were deprived of enjoying their property for the last 30 years, this Court is of the view that the writ petitioners are entitled to the reliefs prayed for. 21. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and disposed of as follows: The respondents 1 to 4 shall re-convey the property to the petitioners and respondents 5 to 11 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the Municipality is unable to re-convey the property as ordered hereby for reasons beyond its control, the Government shall publish notification under Section 4(1) of the Act within a period of one month thereafter and shall pass award as directed herein below. The Municipality shall pass a written order within the said period of two months stating the reasons for non-conveyance and shall inform the petitioners in writing if there is a decision not to re-convey. The land value must be worked out on the basis of Section 4(1) notification to be published. In view of the urgency of the situation, petitioners agree that Section 5(A) enquiry can be dispensed with for avoiding further delay. In the circumstance, this Court direct the Collector to publish notification under Section 6 of the Act within a period of two months from the date of Section 4(1) notification. After holding award enquiry the Collector shall pass the award within a period of six months from the date of Section 6 declaration. The petitioners are at liberty to challenge the quantum of compensation in appropriate proceedings. 22. After holding award enquiry the Collector shall pass the award within a period of six months from the date of Section 6 declaration. The petitioners are at liberty to challenge the quantum of compensation in appropriate proceedings. 22. The excluded 21 cents of land which is the subject matter of the suit has been utilised by the beneficiary for the purpose of formation of road. Therefore, re-conveyance of the property is out of question. In the result, A.S.No.537/2000 is allowed as follows: The judgment and decree in O.S.No.524/1994 is set aside. Suit is decreed. The Government shall publish notification under Section 4(1) of the Act within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and shall pass the award as directed herein below. The land value must be worked out on the basis of Section 4(1) notification to be published. In view of the urgency of the situation, appellants agree that Section 5(A) enquiry can be dispensed with for avoiding further delay. In the circumstance, this Court direct the Collector to publish notification under Section 6 of the Act within a period of two months from the date of Section 4(1) notification. After holding award enquiry, the Collector shall pass award within a period of six months from the date of Section 6 declaration. The legal heirs of the original plaintiff are at liberty to challenge the quantum of compensation in appropriate proceedings. 23. In the alternative, the District Collector is at liberty to fix the land value of 41 cents by invoking the procedure prescribed under GO (MS).No.182/12/RD dated 3.5.2012. In the event of a decision to fix land value as per the Government Order read above, the District Level Purchase Committee shall fix the land value as per the Rules, make negotiation and if there is consensus, the District Collector shall forward the recommendations of the District Level Purchase Committee to the State Level Empowered Committee within a period of two months from the date of 4(1) notification to be published as directed in the preceding paragraphs. On receipt of the recommendation of the District Level Purchase Committee, the State Level Empowered Committee shall take a decision and pass order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the recommendations. On receipt of the recommendation of the District Level Purchase Committee, the State Level Empowered Committee shall take a decision and pass order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the recommendations. If the District Collector proposes to fix the land value as per the procedure stated above, the implementation and execution of the direction issued in the writ petition and appeal shall be kept in abeyance for the period to be taken for completing the formalities except the direction to issue notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. As the defendants proceeded illegally in the matter and retained the property unlawfully, they must pay the cost of litigation estimated at Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) each to the appellants.