JUDGMENT P.S. Rana, J. RFA Nos. 281 of 2008 to RFA Nos. 288 of 2008 are consolidated with RFA No. 280 of 2008 because all regular first appeals filed against the same award passed by learned District Judge Bilaspur. Learned District Judge Bilaspur consolidated land reference petitions and passed the same award. All regular first appeals are consolidated in order to avoid conflicting award. Brief facts of the case 2. Land Acquisition Collector HPPWD (CZ) Mandi passed award No. 40 on dated 25.2.2004 wherein the land was acquired for construction of Bamta-Ali Khad-Kothi Kandrour road in village Bhandwar Tehsil Sadar District Bilaspur (H.P.) Notification under Section 4 was issued in H.P. Rajpatra on dated 10.6.1998 and notification under Sections 6 and 7 of Land Acquisition Act 1894 was issued in H.P. Rajpatra on dated 7.6.1999. The award was passed by Land Acquisition Collector HPPWD (CZ) Mandi on dated 25.2.2004. Land reference petitions were instituted in the year 2004 before learned District Judge Bilaspur H.P. Learned District Judge Bilaspur H.P. dismissed all reference petitions with observation that award was not passed within two years after notification issued under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act 1894. Learned District Judge held that award passed by Land Acquisition Collector HPPWD(CZ) Mandi was untenable award in view of Section 11(A) of Land Acquisition Act 1894. Learned District Judge directed either to issue fresh notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act or to seek recovery of amount paid to land owners in accordance with law. Learned District Judge further directed that in case fresh notification issued then amount of compensation received by petitioners with interest would be adjusted. 3. Feeling aggrieved against the award passed by learned District Judge Bilaspur dated 9.7.2008 Land Acquisition Collector HPPWD Mandi filed RFAs Nos. 280 of 2008 to 288 of 2008. None appeared on behalf of the respondents despite service. 4. Court heard learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of appellants in all appeals. 5. Submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of appellants that learned District Judge had failed to appreciate the documents on record and oral evidence adduced by parties and on this ground appeals be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. 5. Submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of appellants that learned District Judge had failed to appreciate the documents on record and oral evidence adduced by parties and on this ground appeals be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Learned District Judge has dismissed the reference petitions on the ground that award was not passed by Land Acquisition Collector HPPWD (CZ) Mandi within two years from the date of publication of declaration under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act 1894. As per Section 11(A) of Land Acquisition Act 1894 it is obligatory upon the Collector to pass award under Section 11 of Land Acquisition Act 1894 within two years from the date of publication of declaration. Section 11(A) of Land Acquisition Act 1894 is quoted in toto:- “11A. Period within which an award shall be made- (1) 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.) It is proved beyond reasonable doubt that Land Acquisition Collector did not pass the award within two years from the date of publication of declaration under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act 1894. In present case declaration under Section 6 was published in H.P. Rajpatra on dated 7.6.1999 and same was published in newspaper Indian Express on dated 23.6.1999 and same was published in Vir Partap on dated 23.6.1999 and wide publicity was effected in locality on dated 11.11.1999. Award No. 40 was passed by learned Land Acquisition Collector HPPWD (CZ) Mandi on dated 25.2.2004. Award No. 40 was passed by learned Land Acquisition Collector HPPWD (CZ) Mandi on dated 25.2.2004. It is proved on record that award No. 40 dated 25.2.2004 was not passed by learned Land Acquisition Collector HPPWD (CZ) Mandi within two years after publication of declaration issued under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act 1894. The word “shall” has been mentioned in Section 11 (A) of Land Acquisition Act 1894 and word “shall” is mandatory in nature and not directory in nature. In view of proved facts that Land Acqusition Collector HPPWD(CZ) Mandi did not pass award No. 40 within two years from the date of publication of declaration under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act 1894 it is held that entire proceedings for the acquisition of land passed under award No.40 dated 25.02.2004 stood lapsed as per provision of Section 11-A of Land Acquisition Act 1894. 6. Another submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of appellants that owners of land have participated in inquiry proceedings of Land Acquisition Collector Mandi after notification issued under Section 4 of the Act and award was announced in presence of land owners on dated 25.2.2004 and land owners did not raise any objection under Section 11(A) of Land Acquisition Act and on this ground appeal be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Section 11(A) is incorporated in Land Acquisition Act 1894. Land Acquisition Act 1894 is a special Act. There is specific provision under Section 11 (A) that award should be announced by the Collector within two years from the date of publication of declaration under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act 1894. It is well settled law that no estoppel against law can be pleaded by any of the parties before Court of law. (See AIR 1986 All. 56 (DB) titled Indra Bahadur Singh vs. Bar Council of U.P.) 7. Another submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behlaf of appellants that land owners have raised the objection relating to enhancement of compensation under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act and did not raise any objection of limitation as mentioned under Section 11(A) of Land Acquisition Act 1894 and on this ground appeals be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. As per Section 3 of Limitation Act 1963 the Courts are under legal obligation to dismiss the suits, appeals and applications filed after the prescribed period of limitation although limitation is not pleaded as a defence. It is held that all Courts are under legal obligation to dismiss all appeals, suits and applications which are filed beyond limitation even though limitation is not pleaded as a defence. 8. Another submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of appellants that no issue of limitation was framed by learned District Judge Bilaspur and law of limitation was raised when the case was listed for arguments before learned District Judge Bilaspur and on this ground appeals be accepted is rejected being devoid of anty force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is held that as per Section 3 of Limitation Act 1963 the Courts are under legal obligation to dismiss all suits, appeals and applications which are filed beyond limitation period. As per Section 11(A) of Land Acquisition Act 1894 there is specific limitation that award should be passed by Land Acquisition Collector within two years after issuance of declaration under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act 1894. Court is of the opinion that in present case there is no need of framing any issue relating to limitation because there is positive evidence on record as per award No. 40 that declaration under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act 1894 was issued on dated 7.6.1999 and award No. 40 was passed by learned Land Acquisition Collector on dated 25.2.2004. There is no issue on facts inter se the parties relating to issuance of declaration under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act 1894 and relating to date of award No. 40 passed by learned Land Acquisition Collector HPPWD (CZ) Mandi. It is admitted case of both the parties that declaration under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act 1894 was issued in H.P. Rajpatra on dated 7.6.1999 and award was passed by Land Acquisition Collector on dated 25.2.2004. In view of the fact that there was no issue inter se the parties relating to issuance of declaration under Section 6 and relating to passing of final award No. 40 by Land Acquisition Collector Court is of the opinion that learned District Judge was not under legal obligation to frame issues qua facts which were not in dispute inter se parties. It is well settled law that issues are framed if there is conflict between the parties relating to facts. In present case there is no conflict between the parties relating to issuance of declaration under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act and relating to passing of award No. 40 by learned Land Acquisition Collector HPPWD (CZ) Mandi. Hence it is held that it was not obligatory upon learned District Judge to frame issues upon point of limitation. 9. In view of above stated facts RFA Nos. 280 of 2008 to 288 of 2008 are dismissed. It is held that entire proceedings for the acquisition of land stood lapsed under Section 11-A of Land Acquisition Act 1894 relating to award No. 40 dated 25.2.2004. Award passed by learned District Judge Bilaspur dated 9.7.2008 is affirmed. Certified copy of judgment will be placed in original file of RFA Nos. 281 of 2008 to 288 of 2008. No order as to costs. File(s) of learned District Judge Bilaspur and file(s) of Land Acquisition Collector HPPWD (CZ) Mandi be sent back forthwith along with certified copy of this judgment. File of RFA Nos. 280 of 2008 to 288 of 2008 be consigned to Record Room after due completion forthwith. No order as to costs. RFA Nos. 280 of 2008 to 288 of 2008 are disposed of. All pending miscellaneous application(s) are also disposed of.