JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. The matter at issue is the acquisition of a parcel of land bearing plot no. 4234, area 1.5 acre, situate at Mauza Akbarnagar, Police Station Sultanganj, District Bhagalpur for the purposes of construction of a building for Akbarnagar Police Station. 3. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the validity and correctness of Notification dated 14.06.2010 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(4) of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, “the Act”) under the signature of Deputy Secretary of the Government, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna. The petitioner has also assailed the validity and correctness of declaration made under Section 6 of the Act by notification dated 15.06.2010. Both the aforesaid notifications under Section 4 read with Section 17(4) as also declaration made under Section 6 of the Act have been brought on the record as Annexure-1 series to the writ petition. 4. At this place, it would be relevant to mention here that though the petitioner has brought on record the notice dated 18.02.2013 issued under Section 12(2) of the Act under the signature of the Collector, as contained in Annexure-8 to the writ petition, informing the petitioner that an award under Section 11 of the Act has been prepared for the lands in question for a sum of Rs.53,76,842.15 and he has been asked to appear with relevant documents to receive the aforesaid award amount, yet the validity and correctness of the award, so prepared, has not been assailed by the petitioner in the present proceeding. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner while assailing the impugned notification issued under Section 4 read with Section 17 (4) of the Act as also the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act submitted that there was absolutely no emergency for establishment of a building for Akbarnagar police station, therefore, invoking of the emergency provision under Section 17(4) of the Act was not justified. He further submitted that the award was not prepared within a period of two years from the date of declaration under Section 6 of the Act and possession of the lands in question has not been taken till date, therefore, according to him, the entire land acquisition proceeding based on the impugned notification under Section 4 read with Section 17(4) of the Act is fit to be quashed and set aside. In support of his above contentions, he has placed heavy reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Darshan Lal Nagpal (dead) by Lrs. Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and others [ (2012) 2 SCC 327 ]. 6. The matter has been contested by the respondents by filing two separate sets of counter affidavits; one on behalf of the respondent no.3, the District Collector, Bhagalpur and other on behalf of the respondent no.7, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur. In the aforesaid two counter affidavits, it is pleaded that in view of urgency of establishment of a building of Akbarnagar Police Station, the land acquisition proceeding was initiated on the basis of requisition made by the Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur by invoking the emergency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act. It has been stated in the aforesaid counter affidavits that after issuance of notification under Section 4 read with Section 17(4) of the Act, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made and aforesaid notification as also the declaration were published in the daily news papers which have been brought on record as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.7. The learned SC 22 appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that, in fact, award was prepared within the statutory period of two years, but the petitioner has not assailed the validity and correctness of the award, so prepared, therefore, whole writ petition is liable to be dismissed on that score alone. However, in the aforesaid two counter affidavits, date of preparation of award was not disclosed. 7. However, in the aforesaid two counter affidavits, date of preparation of award was not disclosed. 7. In view of rival claims raised on behalf of the petitioner viz-a-viz respondents about preparation of the award with respect to the lands in question under the provisions of the Act, this Court by order dated 16.03.2016 directed the District Land Acquisition Officer, Bhagalpur to produce the original record of land acquisition case in question to ascertain as to whether award was prepared within the statutory period of two years or not. In compliance of the order and direction issued by this Court, original record of the land acquisition case in question was produced before this Court on 04.07.2016 by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Bhagalpur. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner was also permitted to go through the original record of the land acquisition case in question and the matter was adjourned for the next dater i.e. 05.07.2016. On the next date i.e. 05.07.2016 the original record of the land acquisition case in question was again available in the court and both sides advanced their submissions by referring to the materials available in the original record of the land acquisition case in question. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that admittedly notification under Section 4 read with Section 17(4) of the Act was published on 21.06.2010 in the news papers and declaration made under Section 6 of the Act was also published in the news papers on 22.06.2010, but the award has been prepared on 11.08.2012, therefore, it was not within the statutory period of two years. Hence, the entire land acquisition proceeding has lapsed under the mandate of Section 11A of the Act. 9. Au-contraire, the learned SC 22 appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that under the mandate of Section 6(2) of the Act, a declaration is required to be published in the official gazette and in two daily news papers circulated in the locality in which the land is situate. He has further submitted that it is true that so far publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act in two daily news papers is concerned, that was made on 22.06.2010, but the gazette publication was made on 01.11.2010 and award was prepared on 11.08.2012 which was within the statutory period of two years. He has further submitted that it is true that so far publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act in two daily news papers is concerned, that was made on 22.06.2010, but the gazette publication was made on 01.11.2010 and award was prepared on 11.08.2012 which was within the statutory period of two years. Therefore, according to him, award so prepared for the land acquisition case in question cannot be legally faulted. He next submitted that for the purposes of computation of period of two years under Section 11 of the Act, the period of limitation has to be computed from the last date of publication of declaration made under Section 6 of the Act. According to him, the last date of publication in the official gazette was indisputably on 01.11.2010 and award was prepared on 11.08.2012, hence it was within the period of limitation of two years as prescribed under Section 11A of the Act. In support of his above contentions, he has placed heavy reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bihar State Housing Board Vs. State of Bihar and others [2003 (4) PLJR (SC) 161], particularly, paragraphs 2, 7 and 9. He has also placed reliance on another judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti and another Vs. Makrand Singh and others [ (1995) 2 SCC 497 ]. 10. After having heard the parties and on taking into consideration the materials available on the record as also on examination of the original record of the land acquisition case in question, this Court finds there is no dispute that in the year 2010 requisition was made by the Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur for acquisition of a parcel of land for construction of a building for Akbarnagar Police Station, whereafter a notification under Section 4 read with Section 17 (4) of the Act was issued on 14.06.2010 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 15.06.2010 which were published in the daily news papers on 21.06.2010 and 22.06.2010 respectively. It is also not in dispute that the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act was published in the official gazette on 01.11.2010 and award has been prepared on 11.08.2012. It is also not in dispute that the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act was published in the official gazette on 01.11.2010 and award has been prepared on 11.08.2012. It is further not in dispute that the notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was issued to the petitioner on 18.02.2013 asking him to produce relevant documents of title over the lands in question for receiving the award amount to the tune of Rs.53,76,842.15. However, it is further not in dispute that the aforesaid award amount has not been received by the petitioner till date. 11. There is no quarrel about the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Darshan Lal Nagpal Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and others (supra) where acquisition of large area of lands was subject matter of consideration. So far as the present case is concerned, only small parcel of land of 1.5 acres is the subject matter of consideration. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while laying down the principles in that case has noticed in paragraph 23 that there are long line of judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court where invoking of emergency clause under Section 4(1) read with 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act for acquisition of land has been approved. In paragraph 24 of the aforesaid judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also noticed that there are long line of judgments of the Supreme Court where acquisition of lands by invoking the urgency provisions under Section 17 (4) of the Act has been disapproved. In paragraph 25 of the aforesaid judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that “it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any straitjacket formula which can be applied to each and every case involving challenge to the acquisition of land by invoking the urgency provision”. Thus, it is apparent that invoking urgency clause under Section 17 (4) of the Act depends upon the facts of each and every case. So far as the present case is concerned, the requisition for acquisition of the land in question was made in the year 2010, notification under Section 4 read with Section 17(4) of the Act was published in the daily news papers on 21.06.2010 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the news papers on 22.06.2010 and the same was published in official gazette on 01.11.2010. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, there was no undue and unusual delay on the part of the State authorities. Hence, invoking of emergency provision under Section 17 (4) of the Act cannot be held to be unjustified. Hence, on this score, the impugned notification as contained in Anmnexure-1 series cannot be legally faulted. 12. Now, coming to the issue regarding preparation of award within the statutory period of two years is concerned, this Court finds that exactly on the identical issue, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the principles in the case of Bihar State Housing Board Vs. State of Bihar and others (supra) in very clear terms. For better appreciation, paragraphs 2, 7 and 9 of the aforesaid judgment is re-produced hereinbelow: “2. The basic issues involved in this appeal revolve round the question whether the award made under section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is barred by limitation” ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- “7. The crucial words in Section 11A are “within a period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration”. Section 6(2) deals with the various modes of publication, as enjoined by the Legislature and what is envisaged by the Statute is a conjoint publication, by all such methods. Various modes as prescribed in the provision itself are : (a) publication in the Official Gazette, (b) publication in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality in which the lands is situate of which at least one shall be in the regional language, and (c) public notice of substance of such declaration at convenient places in the locality. There is no option left with any one to give up or waive any one or other of the modes and all such modes have to be strictly resorted to. Sub-section (2) of Section 6 therefore, necessarily makes it abundantly clear that the last of the dates of the publication and giving of such public notice shall “hereinafter” be referred to as the date of publication of the declaration. Therefore, the expression “date of publication of declaration” appearing in Section 11A a stage subsequent to Section 6, answering the stipulation “hereinafter” has to be the last of the dates out of the three modes of publication ordained by the Statute. Therefore, the expression “date of publication of declaration” appearing in Section 11A a stage subsequent to Section 6, answering the stipulation “hereinafter” has to be the last of the dates out of the three modes of publication ordained by the Statute. In substance the triumvirate modes are cumulative and inseparable in the sense that unless all the three modes are resorted to and completed, there is no scope for the limitation period of two years beginning to run or for the penal consequences envisaged ensuing therefrom” ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- “9. If one takes note of the parenthesis appearing in Sub-section (2) of Section 6, it is clear that reference to the subsequent provisions of the Act to the date of publication of declaration has to be determined as the last of the dates of the publication and the giving of public notice. As the date of publication by local publication was the last at that point of time i.e. on 15.03.1991 the award on 25.03.1992 was not beyond the prescribed period of limitation.” 13. In order to apply the aforesaid principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with respect to Section 6 and 11A of the Act, this Court finds that the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the official gazette on 01.11.2010 and award was prepared on 11.08.2012. Hence, it was prepared well within the statutory period of two years. Therefore, the land acquisition proceeding cannot be said to have lapsed under Section 11A of the Act on account of non-preparation of award within the statutory period of two years. Hence, on this score also, the writ petition has to fail. 14. For the reasons recorded above, this Court does not feel persuaded to accede to the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner in the present writ petition. Hence, the writ petition has to fail and is, accordingly, dismissed. 15. However, if the petitioner appears before the Collector under the Act with relevant documents for receiving the award amount of Rs. 53,76,842.15 (Rupees fifty three lacs, seventy six thousand, eight hundred forty two and paise 15 only) prepared in his favour, then the same shall be paid to him without any unnecessary delay. 16. 15. However, if the petitioner appears before the Collector under the Act with relevant documents for receiving the award amount of Rs. 53,76,842.15 (Rupees fifty three lacs, seventy six thousand, eight hundred forty two and paise 15 only) prepared in his favour, then the same shall be paid to him without any unnecessary delay. 16. It is further clarified that if the petitioner is at all aggrieved by the quantum of award amount determined by the Collector under the Act, then he shall be at liberty to invoke the remedy available to him under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of quantum of award amount. If such a petition is filed on behalf of the petitioner within a period of one month from today, then the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the dismissal of the present writ petition. 17. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, but with the observations and directions made above. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. 18. The original record of the land acquisition case in question, which was handed over by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Bhagalpur on 05.07.2016 for its perusal and examination by this Court, is being returned to Mr. Kundan Bahadur Singh, the learned SC 22 for being transmitted to the respondent District Land Acquisition Officer, Bhagalpur fur further necessary action.