JUDGMENT : SONGKHUPCHUNG SERTO, J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus and or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to satisfy the compensation awarded by the order dated 25.10.2012, of the Deputy Commissioner/Collector Dimapur, passed in Land Acquisition Case No. REV-17/2005-D/2012/1442, with penal interest in addition to the interest already awarded in the order at such rate as this Court may deem fit and proper. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Imti. Longjem and also heard Mr. Yangerwati, learned CGC who appeared on behalf of the respondents No. 1, 2 & 3. I have also heard Mr. K. Sema, Sr. Addl. A.G, assisted by Ms. Livika, learned Government Advocate, on behalf of the State respondents. 3. The facts of the case leading to the institution of this writ petition are as follows:- That the petitioner inherited two patta lands from her late husband Kumar Paira being; (i) Patta No. 6/1329, Dag No. 7/1489, and 58/1490 of Block No. 9, Dimapur Mouza No. 2 and (ii) Patta No. 1768, Dag No. 110/1931, and 9/1931 of Block No. 9, Dimapur Mouza No. 2. The total area of the two patta lands is 05B-04K-01Ls equivalent to 1.92 acres. In the year 1962, the Border Roads Organisation took the two lands of the petitioner on lease for a period of 50 years with effect from 01.11.1962 to 31.10.2012. The formal lease deed was however, executed only on 25.09.1984, between the parties and in terms of the agreement, the petitioner's family was paid Rs. 60/- only per acre, per annum. The rent was revised from time to time and the highest the petitioner ever received was Rs. 384 per annum, towards the end of the lease period. On 17.11.2008, the petitioner through her counsel sent a legal notice to the respondents asking for enhancement of the rent as well as vacation of the land on expiry of the lease period. Following the receipt of the legal notice, the Project Sewak through a letter No. 25214/SWK Complex/21/E2 Wks, dated 06.10.2009, requested the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur to acquire the land and to make the same available to them on lease. Following the receipt of the legal notice, the Project Sewak through a letter No. 25214/SWK Complex/21/E2 Wks, dated 06.10.2009, requested the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur to acquire the land and to make the same available to them on lease. Pursuant thereto notice No. Rev-22/2010-D/1263-65, dated 24.3.2010, was sent to the petitioner asking her opinion as to whether she was willing to extend the lease period with the Project SEWAK. The petitioner through a letter dated 16.04.2010, communicated that she was not willing to extend the lease. Thereafter, the petitioner was asked to attend a meeting convened vide, letter No. Rev-22/2010-D/1812-14, dated 18.05.2010, of the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur to discuss about the issue. The petitioner attended the meeting with her learned counsel which was held on 2.6.2010. The meeting was attended by the representatives of Project SEWAK and the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur. Due to the persuasion of the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur and the representatives of the Project SEWAK the petitioner agreed to the proposal for acquisition of her land. After several correspondence between the petitioner and the respondents on the subject matter, the Project SEWAK wrote another letter being No. 25214/Swk Complex/85/E2, dated 20.05.2011, to the State Government to acquire the land of the petitioner and to make the same available to them on lease. Acting on the same letter, the Government of Nagaland vide letter No. L/1-11/2000, dated 13.06.2011, directed the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur to negotiate with the petitioner and to submit the proposal for acquisition of the petitioner's land. Thereafter, the Office of the Deputy Commissioner vide letter No. Rev-17/2005-D/2783, dated 29.06.2011, asked the petitioner to attend another meeting on 11.07.2011, to discuss the matter relating to acquisition of her land. On the same day, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Revenue Officer, Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur requesting him to carry out the proposal to acquire her land as per the procedure prescribed by law to avoid any complication. Soon thereafter, vide order No. Rev-17/2005-D/3281-82, dated 12.07.2011, steps were taken for assessment of the market value of the petitioner's land. After submission of the report, the detailed proposal for acquiring the petitioner's land was submitted vide letter No. Rev-17/2005-D/3120-22, dated 29.07.2011, by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, to the Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Land Revenue Department. Soon thereafter, vide order No. Rev-17/2005-D/3281-82, dated 12.07.2011, steps were taken for assessment of the market value of the petitioner's land. After submission of the report, the detailed proposal for acquiring the petitioner's land was submitted vide letter No. Rev-17/2005-D/3120-22, dated 29.07.2011, by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, to the Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Land Revenue Department. The same is reproduced here below:- "Government of Nagaland Office of the Deputy Commissioner Dimapur: Nagaland No. Rev-17/2005-D/ Dt. Dimapur, the 29th July' 11. To, The Secretary to the Government of Nagaland Land Revenue Department Nagaland: Kohima Sub:-Proposal for acquisition of land of Mrs. Anie Paira occupied by Project Sewak at Dimapur. Sir, This is in reference to the Land Revenue Department letter No. LR/1-11/2000 dated Kohima the 13th June 2011, whereby this office was requested to negotiate with the land owner Mrs. Anie Paira in respect of the plot of land measuring 1.92 acres, presently given on lease to Project Sewak till 31st October 2011. Pursuant thereto, this office vide letter No. Rev-17/2005-D/783, Dimapur dated 29th June, 2011 summoned Mrs. Anie Paira to discuss the issue of acquisition of land on 11.07.11 at 12 noon. Accordingly, Mrs. Anie Paira appeared along with her counsel submitted an application stating that, should be Government propose to acquire her land measuring 1.92 acre, the same should be in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law so as to void any complication. As per the records available in this office, an area of 1.92 acre situated at Midland, Dimapur, under Dag No. 58 of Block No. 9, came into the occupation of Project Sewak in the year 1962. Thereafter, a lease agreement was executed between Mr. Kumar Paira (the husband of the Mrs. Paira) and the Union of India on 25.09.1984 for a period of 50 years, which is due to expire by 31st October 2012, since the Lease commenced from 1.11.1962. It appears that there were numerous correspondence between the parties for extension of the Lease Agreement. However Mrs. Anie Paira refused for further extension. In the mean time, the Project Sewak has approached the State Government to acquire the Land measuring 1.92 acres and to retain and continue its occupation by way of Lease. It appears that there were numerous correspondence between the parties for extension of the Lease Agreement. However Mrs. Anie Paira refused for further extension. In the mean time, the Project Sewak has approached the State Government to acquire the Land measuring 1.92 acres and to retain and continue its occupation by way of Lease. In view of the above, it is proposed that it will be necessary and expedient to take up the matter for speedy acquisition in term of Section 9 of the Nagaland Land (Requisition and Acquisition Act, 1965). The areas and boundaries of the proposed Land for acquisition are as under:- An area measuring about 1.92 acres situated at Midland, Dimapur under Dag No. 58/1490 standing in the name of Mrs. Anie Paira, which is butted and bounded as on the: East: Government Land. West: Shri. K. Kerhou's Land North: Government Land South : Shri. K. Paira's Land. On personal query and consultation with Mrs. Anie Paira, she quoted that the cost of land as per prevailing value is Rs. 800 per sq. ft. Further, section 11 of the Nagaland Act-3 of 1965 provides that in addition to the market value of the land, it is mandatory to award a sum of 15% of such market value in consideration of the compulsory nature of the compensation. Thus the proposed compensation can be calculated as follows. (1) 1.92 acres i.e 83636 sq. ft x Rs. 800 = Rs.6,69,08,800/- (2) 15% of the market value = Rs. 1,00,36,320/- Total = Rs. 7,69,45,120/- It is also suggested that, in case of acquisition of the land, a specific time frame must be agreed upon so that the whole process is completed within a period of 5 months. Yours faithfully, (Maong Aier) Deputy Commissioner Dimapur: Nagaland." On 19.09.2011, Col (Wks) for Chief Engineer, SEWAK vide his letter No. 25214/Swk Complex/95/E2 Wks requested the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur to convene a meeting between the land owner and representatives of the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur and representative of HQ (P) SEWAK for finalization of the process of acquisition of the land by Government of Nagaland for further handing over to BRO on lease. In pursuance thereof, a meeting was convened and as a result of the meeting office of the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur issued an order dated 02.11.2011, No. REV-17/2005-D/2365-68, wherein it was stated that all concerned have agreed to go ahead with the acquisition of land, therefore, the Land Revenue Survey Officer, Dimapur is directed to submit a report of the survey as agreed by all concern. The Land Revenue Survey Officer, Dimapur accordingly submitted his report on the survey of the land vide his letter No.LRSO/D/RECH-3/2010-11/173, dated 13.12.2011, to the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur. On receipt of the same, the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur wrote a letter No. REV-17/2005-D/3711-14, dated 9.12.2011, to the Addl. Chief Secretary-cum-Commissioner and Ex-Officio Director, Land Revenue, Nagaland, Kohima, apprising him of the process that has already be undertaken and requested him to take up the land acquisition matter of the petitioner's land expeditiously in order to avoid un-necessary confrontation between the land owner and the Project SEWAK. Thereafter, there was communications between the petitioner and the people concerned in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur to determine the price of the land to be acquired and as per the market rate prevailing and as a result of the negotiation that took place the rate was determined @ Rs. 800 per sq. ft. as per the market rate prevailing at that time. The same was reported to the Addl. Chief Secretary-cum-Commissioner Ex-Officio Director, Land Revenue, Government of Nagaland by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, vide letter dated 24.01.2012, No. REV-17/2005-D/9759-62. Thereafter, the Project SEWAK wrote another letter to the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, dated 06.01.2012, stating as follows:- "2. The lease agreement between Mrs. Anie Paira and CE (P) Sewak executed for 50 years for land measuring 1.92 acres is due to expire on 31 Oct 2012. A joint meeting was held in your office on 17 March 2011 and 28 Oct. 2011. It was agreed by all concerned to process the case for acquiring the land by the State Government. The joint survey was carried out accordingly and case for acquiring land was forwarded to Addl. Chief Secy., Govt. of Nagaland, vide DC, Dimapur letter No. 17/2005-D/3711-14 dated 09 Dec 2011. 3. In view of the above, you are requested to take expeditious action to acquire 1.92 acres of land belonging to Smti. The joint survey was carried out accordingly and case for acquiring land was forwarded to Addl. Chief Secy., Govt. of Nagaland, vide DC, Dimapur letter No. 17/2005-D/3711-14 dated 09 Dec 2011. 3. In view of the above, you are requested to take expeditious action to acquire 1.92 acres of land belonging to Smti. Anie Paira and further lease it to Project Sewak as the leased already executed is expiring on 31 Oct. 2012." 4. After all the necessary communications and process, was completed the Deputy-Commissioner passed the order dated 25.10.2012, in the Land Acquisition case No. Rev-17/2005-D/2012/1442. The same is reproduced here below:- "Brief facts: Project Sewak came into occupation of the land of Smti. Anie Paira in the year 1962 on payment of annual rent. The formal deed was however executed only in the year 1984 for a period of 50 years with effect from 01.11.62 to 31.10.2012. The land measuring 1.92 acres is in the heart of Dimapur Town located at Midland, beside the mina road. The lease is set to expire on 31.10.12. Since the land owner was not satisfied with the rent received, she wrote to the Project Sewak asking them to vacate on the expiry of the lease. This in turn promoted Project Sewak to write to the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur seeking acquisition of the land. Some correspondences between the parties ultimately resulted in a written request from the Chief Engineer, Project Sewak through the letter bearing No. 25214/SWK Complex/121/E2 Wks dated 06.10.09. By this letter the Project Sewak requested the Government of Nagaland to acquire the land and give the same on lease to it for a period of 50 years with effect from 31.10.12. Pursuant thereto, the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur by a Notice dated 23.03.10 requested a meeting with Smti. Anie Paira regarding lease of the land. Smti. Anie Paira by her letter dated 16.04.10 refused to extend the lease in favour of Project Sewak. The Government of Nagaland by letter dated 13.06.11 also wrote to the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur to process the matter for the acquisition of the land in question. By another notice dated 18.05.10, Smti. Anie Paira was again requested to attend a meeting to discuss the lease of the land to Project Sewak. On the appointed day, representatives of the Project Sewak did not attend. By another notice dated 18.05.10, Smti. Anie Paira was again requested to attend a meeting to discuss the lease of the land to Project Sewak. On the appointed day, representatives of the Project Sewak did not attend. By letter dated 17.06.10, the Revenue Officer informed the Project Sewak that the land owner did not agree to extend the lease. Thereafter, by letter dated 29.06.11, the land owner was requested to attend a meeting to discuss the acquisition of land. In reply, by letter dated 11.7.11, Smti. Anie Paira accepted the proposal for acquisition of the land. Consequently, by order dated 12.9.11, the Project Sewak as well as Smti. Anie Paira were requested to attend a meeting on 28.10.11. This meeting was attended by representatives of the Project Sewak as well as the land owner Smti. Anie Paira. The parties agreed to inmate the acquisition process. Accordingly, the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur issued an order dated 2.11.11 directing the Land Records & Survey Officer, Dimapur to submit a report in respect of the land in question. The Land Records and Survey Officer submitted his report by letter dated 3.12.11. By this report, the land belonging to Smti. Anie Paira measuring about 1.92 acres was identified and a trace map prepared. The survey was jointly carried out by the representatives of the Project Sewak and the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur and a copy handed over to the Project Sewak. the acknowledgment in this regard from Project Sewak was received by letter dated 9.11.11. On her acceptance for the proposal for acquisition, by order dated 12.7.11 the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur directed the Extra Assistant Commissioner (Revenue) to assess the prevailing market rate and submit the report. Accordingly, by letter dated 18.7.11 the Revenue Office submitted his report stating that the present market rate of the land at Sewak Gate No. 1 at Midland is about Rs. 900/- to Rs. 1000/- per sq. ft. Thereafter, the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur by letter dated 5.12.11 submitted the matter to the Office of the Additional Chief Secretary and Commissioner, Government of Nagaland, Kohima seeking appropriate directions. By letter dated 12.11.2012 the office of the Commissioner, Nagaland wrote to the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur to authenticate the claims of Smti. Anie Paira with regard to the value to the land. By letter dated 12.11.2012 the office of the Commissioner, Nagaland wrote to the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur to authenticate the claims of Smti. Anie Paira with regard to the value to the land. In reply, by letter dated 24.1.2012 the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur wrote to the Additional Chief Secretary and Commissioner, Nagaland explaining that though Smti. Anie Paira had quote the rate @ Rs. 1500/- per sf. Ft., taking the rate of assessed by the Revenue Officer, Dimapur and on negotiation with Smit. Anie Paira the rate has been fixed @ Rs. 800/- per Sft. Ft. The matter was then placed before the State Land Acquisition authority (hereinafter referred to as the SLAA). By an Office Memorandum dated 15.6.12, the SLAA, at agenda No. 16/7, agreed to acquire the land of Smti. Anie Paira measuring 1.92 acres under the occupation of the Project Sewak at block No. 9, Midland, Dimapur @ Rs. 800/- per sf. Ft. for the sum of Rs. 6,69,08,800/- (Rupees six core sixty nine lacs eight thousand eight hundred). The SLAA decided that the cost of the land be realized from BRO. the minutes of the SLAA was endorsed to the Project Sewak. In their reply by letter dated 11.10.12, the Project Sewak informed the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur that the allotment of funds of the acquisition of land will take time and therefore, the lease should be extended upto 31.3.13. The Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur by notice dated 17.10.12 summoned the parties to a meeting fixed on 22.10.12 to discuss the acquisition of land. In the proceedings on 22.10.12, Smti. Anie Paira, the land owner and her counsel Mr. Sarif Ahmed were present. Project Sewak was represented by Col. A. Choudari and the Executive Engineer Mr. Kuldeep Raj who was also present. Mr. Sarif Ahmed, learned counsel for the land owner submitted that since all procedures have been completed, necessary orders must be issued as prescribed by the provisions of the Nagaland Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to the Act) Col. A. Choudari, HQ Project Sewak reiterated the request of the Project Sewak to allow sometime to seek allotment of funds and the extension of the lease for the land till 31.3.13. The issue relating to the acquisition of the land in the instant matter have been resolved through negotiations. A. Choudari, HQ Project Sewak reiterated the request of the Project Sewak to allow sometime to seek allotment of funds and the extension of the lease for the land till 31.3.13. The issue relating to the acquisition of the land in the instant matter have been resolved through negotiations. In pronouncing the award the provisions of the Act have to be complied with. The Act itself prescribes that compensation payable shall be paid or deposited within 30 days from the date of the award failing thereof interest @ 6% per annum would be attracted from the date of the award until the amount awarded is paid or deposited". "Order In terms of the section 9 of the Act. it is hereby ordered that the land belonging to Smti. Anie Paira, more particularly described in the schedule hereunder is from this the day of 22nd of October, 2012 acquired by the State Government. Since the acquisition process for the land has been initiated with the participation of both the land owner as well as the Project Sewak and the rate of compensation worked out thereon, the notice required under section 9(2) of the Act shall be deemed to have been served and all claims settled. Schedule of the land A plot of land measuring 5B-4K-1Ls (1.92 Acres) covered by Dag No. 58, 110, 7 and 9, Block No. 9 of Dimapur situated at Midland, Dimapur, Nagaland, which is butted and bounded as here under appearing. On or towards the North -Government land On or towards the South - Shri. K. Paira On or towards the East - Government land On or towards the West-Shri. K. Kerhuo's land Award In terms of Section 9 read with Section 11 of the Act, having assessed the market value of the land acquired the award of compensation to the land owner is as under: (a) Total area of the land - 1.92 acres (83636 sq.ft.) (b) Market value - Rs. 800/- per sq.ft. (c) Total assessed value of the land - Rs. 6,69,08,800/- (d) In addition 15% of the market value in terms of the proviso to section 11 of the Act - Rs.1,00,36,320/- Total - Rs.7,69,45,120/- (Rupees Seven Crores Sixty Nine Lakhs Forty Five Thousand One hundred & Twenty only) The Project Sewak shall deposit in this Office, the awarded amount of Rs. 6,69,08,800/- (d) In addition 15% of the market value in terms of the proviso to section 11 of the Act - Rs.1,00,36,320/- Total - Rs.7,69,45,120/- (Rupees Seven Crores Sixty Nine Lakhs Forty Five Thousand One hundred & Twenty only) The Project Sewak shall deposit in this Office, the awarded amount of Rs. 7,69,45,120/- (Rupees Seven Crores Sixty Nine Lakhs Forty Five Thousand One hundred & Twenty) only within 30 days from the date of award failing which interest thereon @6% per annum shall be imposed from the date of the award until the amount awarded is paid or deposited as prescribed by section 13 of the Act. Order and award issued on this the 25th day of October, 2012. Sd/- (N. Hushili Sema) IAS Deputy Commissioner Dimapur: Nagaland." 5. The respondents did not pay the compensation amount awarded by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, therefore, the petitioner served a legal notice dated 03.04.2014, through her learned counsel to the Secretary, Government of India, Border Roads Organisation, Ministry of Defence; the Director General, Border Roads Organisation; the Chief Engineer, Project SEWAK; the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, and the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur asking them to satisfy the award within 30 days and in case they fail to do so she would be compelled to take up appropriate legal proceedings. In reply to the legal notice, the Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Land Revenue department wrote a letter to the petitioner's learned counsel dated 6.5.2014 by enclosing a letter No. 25214/SWK/Complex/80/EII-WKS, dated 07.04.2014, of the Headquarter of Chief Engineer, Project SEWAK. The contents of the letter and the contents of the letter of Chief Engineer, Project SEWAK enclosed therewith are reproduced here below as the same would be relevant in discussing and settling the issue involved in this writ petition. "Land Revenue Department No. LR/11/2000-325 Dated Kohima, the 6th May 2015 To, Shri. Sarif Ahmed, Advocate Zakiesatuo Colony, Ward No. 2. Dimapur-797112. Sub:- Notice under Section 98 of the Right for Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2012 (2013). Sir, I am to refer to the subject cited above and forward herewith letter No. 25214/SWK Complex/80/E2 WKS dated 7/4/14 received from Head Quarters Chief Engineer, Project Sewak for favour of your kind information and necessary action. Enclo: As stated. Yours faithfully, (Y.L. Jami) IAS Secretary to the Govt. Sir, I am to refer to the subject cited above and forward herewith letter No. 25214/SWK Complex/80/E2 WKS dated 7/4/14 received from Head Quarters Chief Engineer, Project Sewak for favour of your kind information and necessary action. Enclo: As stated. Yours faithfully, (Y.L. Jami) IAS Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland." "Headquarters Chief Engineer Project Sewak C/099 APO Pin-931714 No. 25214/SWK Complex/80/E2 Wks 07.04.2014 To, Secretary to the Government of Nagaland Land Revenue Department, Nagaland, Kohima Notice under Section 98 of the Right for Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Sir, 1. Kindly refer your office letter No. LR/1-11/2000/311 dated Mar. 2014. 2. The Legal Notice dated 03 Mar. 2014 has been recd from Shri. Ahmed, Advocate of Mrs. Anie Paira, land owner of 1.92 Acres of land in this connection, the case has been taken up with HQ DGCBR/BRDB. Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India vide our letter No. 24220/Land 1.92 Acres/Sewak Complex/11/E2tg dt.14 Nov. 2012 for the sanction of compensation amount and its release. The case is under active consideration by BRDB, MoD, Govt. of India. Once the sanction is accorded and funds are released, the payment to Mrs. Anie Paira shall be made and land (1.92 acres will be acquired. 3. It is requested that the project (Sewak) may pleased be allowed to continue to pay lease amount to Mrs. Anie Paria and utilize land in the status quo manner till the sanction from Govt. of India is received for acquisition. Yours faithfully, (V K. Agarwal) Col Col (Wks) For Chief engineer." 6. Even after such promises were made for payment of the compensation amount the respondents did not pay the same. Therefore, the petitioner having no choice has come to this Court by filing this writ petition. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the land of the petitioner was acquired under section 9 of the Nagaland Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1965 which provides for speedy acquisition of land in certain cases, therefore, when the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur passed the order or award dated 25.10.2012, in the Land Acquisition Case No. REV-12/2005/D/2012/1442, the acquisition process has been completed and since copy of the award has been given to the petitioner the requirement of publishing the same under section 10 of the same Act has also been met. The learned counsel also submitted that since the Project SEWAK has been in occupation of the petitioner's land since 1962, the acquired land is deemed to have been vested without any encumbrances with the Project SEWAK for whom it was acquired by the State Government, therefore, there is nothing more to be done regarding the land acquisition except making payment of the award by the respondents. As such, at this stage there cannot be turning back on the part of the respondents as that would be against the letter and spirit of the provisions of Nagaland Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1965. It was also submitted that since no appeal was preferred by the respondents against the order of the Deputy Commissioner they are barred by the principle of estoppels therefore, are bound by the same. 8. The learned counsel further submitted that when the land has been vested on the State free from all encumbrances, the State has become the absolute owner of the land and as such, the land cannot be divested. In support of his submission, the learned counsel cited the following cases but only relevant portions of some of the cases are reproduced here; (i) Sulochana Chndrakant Galande Vs. Pune Municipal Transport reported in (2010) 8 SCC 467 , paragraphs-10 to 22. "10. "Encumbrance" actually means the burden caused by an act or omission of man and not that created by nature. It means a burden or charge upon property or a claim or lien on the land. It means a legal liability on property. Thus, it constitutes a burden on the title which diminishes the value of the land. It may be a mortgage or a deed of trust or a lien of an easement. An encumbrance, thus, must be a charge on the property. It must run with the property. (Vide Collector of Bombay Vs. Nusserwanji Rattanji Mistri & Ors., AIR 1955 SC 298 ; H.P. State Electricity Board & Ors. Vs. Shiv K. Sharma & Ors., AIR 2005 SC 954 ; and AI Champdany Industries Ltd. Vs. Official Liquidator & Anr., (2009) 4 SCC 486 ). 11. In State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. It must run with the property. (Vide Collector of Bombay Vs. Nusserwanji Rattanji Mistri & Ors., AIR 1955 SC 298 ; H.P. State Electricity Board & Ors. Vs. Shiv K. Sharma & Ors., AIR 2005 SC 954 ; and AI Champdany Industries Ltd. Vs. Official Liquidator & Anr., (2009) 4 SCC 486 ). 11. In State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Tarsem Singh & Ors., AIR 2001 SC 3431 , this Court held that the terminology free from all encumbrances' used in Section 16 of the Act 1894, is wholly unqualified and would en-compass the extinguishing of "all rights, title and interests including easementary rights" when the title vests in the State. Thus, "free from encumbrances" means vesting of land in the State without any charge or burden in it. Thus, State has absolute title/ownership over it. 12. In Satendra Prasad Jain & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1993 SC 2517 , this Court held that once land vests in the State free from all encumbrances, it cannot be divested. The same view has been reiterated in Awadh Bihari Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., (1995) 6 SCC 31 ; U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow Vs. M/s. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd., Lucknow & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 1170 ; Pratap & Anr. (Supra); Chandragauda Ramgonda Patil & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 405 ; Allahabad Development Authority Vs. Nasiruzzaman & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 424 ; State of Kerala & Ors. Vs. M. Bhaskaran Pillai & Anr., AIR 1997 SC 2703 ; M. Ramalinga Thevar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., (2000)4 SCC 322 ; Printers (Mysore) Ltd. Vs. M.A. Rasheed & Ors., (2004) 4 SCC 460 ; Bangalore Development Authority & Ors. Vs. R. Hanumaiah & Ors., (2005) 12 SCC 508; and Government of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. Vs. Syed Akbar, AIR 2005 SC 492 . 13. So far as the change of user is concerned, it is a settled legal proposition that once land vests in the State free from all encumbrances, there cannot be any rider on the power of the State Government to change user of the land in the manner it chooses. In a similar situation, in Gulam Mustafa & Ors. Vs. 13. So far as the change of user is concerned, it is a settled legal proposition that once land vests in the State free from all encumbrances, there cannot be any rider on the power of the State Government to change user of the land in the manner it chooses. In a similar situation, in Gulam Mustafa & Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., AIR 1977 SC 448 , this Court held as under:- "Once the original acquisition is valid and title has vested in the Municipality, how it uses the excess land is no concern of the original owner and cannot be the basis for invalidating the acquisition. There is no principle of law by which a valid compulsory acquisition stands voided because long later the requiring Authority diverts it to a public purpose other than the one stated in the.......declaration." 14. Re-iterating a similar view in C. Padma & Ors. Vs. Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors., (1997) 2 SCC 627 , this Court held that if by virtue of a valid acquisition of land, land stands vested in the State, thereafter, claimants are not entitled to restoration of possession on the grounds that either the original public purpose is ceased to be in operation or the land could not be used for any other purposes. 15. In Bhagat Singh etc. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 436 ; Niladri Narayan Chandradhurja Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 2002 SC 2532 ; and Northern Indian Glass Industries Vs. Jaswant Singh & Ors., (2003) 1 SCC 335 , this Court held that, the land user can be changed by the Statutory Authority after the land vests in the State free from all encumbrances. 16. In view of the above, the law can be summarised that once the land is acquired, it vests in the State free from all encumbrances. It is not the concern of the land owner how his land is used and whether the land is being used for the purpose for which it was acquired or for any other purpose. He becomes persona non grata once the land vests in the State. He has a right to get compensation only for the same. The person interested cannot claim the right of restoration of land on any ground, whatsoever. 17. He becomes persona non grata once the land vests in the State. He has a right to get compensation only for the same. The person interested cannot claim the right of restoration of land on any ground, whatsoever. 17. In the instant case, there is no pleading by the appellant in respect of the receipt of compensation. No explanation could be furnished as to under what circumstances the appeal was not filed if the appellant was so aggrieved by the order of final assessment under Section 9 of the Act, 1976. 18. The suit land was acquired in 1979. Revision was preferred in 1998, after expiry of about two decades. Section 34 reads as under:- "The State Government may, on its own motion, call for and examine the records of any order passed or proceeding taken under the provisions of this Act and against which no appeal has been preferred under Section 12 or Section 30 or Section 33 for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of such order or as to the regularity of such procedure and pass such order with respect thereto as it may think fit.........." 19. Undoubtedly, Section 34 does not prescribe any limitation during which the Revisional power can be exercised by the State Government either on application or suo moto. The question does arise as to whether absence of limitation in Section 34 confers unfettered power to vary or revoke the order of the prescribed authority without any outside limitation in point of duration i.e. does it confer an everlasting or interminable power in point of time. If the contention raised by Mr. Ganguly that such provisions of Section 34 do not prescribe any limitation, and it confers an interminable power upon the State Government in point of time to exercise the revisional power, is accepted, there will be no finality of the proceedings taken under the Act, 1976. 20. In State of Gujarat Vs. Patel Raghav Natha & Ors. AIR 1969 SC 1297 , this Court considered a similar provision in Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, which also did not provide any limitation for exercising the revisional power by the Commissioner under Sections 65 and 211 of the Code. 20. In State of Gujarat Vs. Patel Raghav Natha & Ors. AIR 1969 SC 1297 , this Court considered a similar provision in Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, which also did not provide any limitation for exercising the revisional power by the Commissioner under Sections 65 and 211 of the Code. The Court held that in spite of the fact that the provisions do not prescribe for any limitation for exercising such revisional powers, "this power must be exercised in reasonable time and the length of the reasonable time must be determined by the facts of the case and the nature of the order, which is being revised". The Court further explained that if the power is not exercised within the reasonable time, it may disturb the possession of the person after an inordinate delay and the occupant who had spent his life savings in developing the land, may lose the benefit thereof. Therefore, the authority must not entertain revisions at a belated stage. 21. In Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie Sangham Vs. K. Suresh Reddy & Ors., (2003) 7 SCC 667 , this Court considered the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Tilangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, wherein the provisions contained in Section 50-B(4) empowered the statutory authority to exercise suo moto revisional power at any time. The Court held as under:- Use of the words "at any time" in sub- Section (4) of Section 50-B of the Act only indicates that no specific period of limitation is prescribed within which the suo moto power could be exercised reckoning or starting from a particular date advisedly and contextually. Exercise of suo moto power depended on facts and circumstances of each case. In cases of fraud, this power could be exercised within a reasonable time from the date of detection or discovery of fraud. While exercising such power, several factors need to be kept in mind such as effect on the rights of the third parties over the immovable property due to passage of considerable time, change of the provisions of other Acts (such as Land Ceiling Act).........Use of the words "at any time" in sub-section (4) of Section 50-B of the Act cannot be rigidly read letter by letter. It must be read and construed contextually and reasonably. It must be read and construed contextually and reasonably. If one has to simply proceed on the basis of the dictionary meaning of the words "at any time", the suo moto power under sub- Section (4) of Section 50-B of the Act could be exercised even after decades and then it would lead to anomalous position leading to uncertainty and complications seriously affecting the rights of the parties, that too, over immovable properties. Orders attaining finality and certainty of the rights of the parties accrued in the light of the orders passed must have sanctity. Exercise of suo moto power "at any time" only means that no specific period such as days, months or years are not prescribed reckoning from a particular date. But, that does not mean that "at any time" should be unguided and arbitrary. In this view, "at any time" must be understood as within a reasonable time depending on the facts and circumstances of each case in the absence of prescribed period of limitation." 22. The said judgment was approved and followed by this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. Vs. T. Yadagiri Reddy & Ors., (2008) 16 SCC 299 ." (ii) Lt. Governor of H.P. Vs. Sri. Avinash Sharma reported in (1970) 2 SCC 149 . "(1) The Deputy Commissioner, Mahasu, apparently acting on the request of the Air Force authorities took possession on 23.12.1963, of an area of land in village Galu Chak. That area included 8-14-0 bighas belonging to the respondent. The record does not disclose the authority under which possession of the land was taken and delivered over to the Air Force. There was correspondence between the Air Force Authorities and the State of Himachal Pradesh in regard to the land occupied by the Air Force and ultimately on 31.03.1964, a notification u/s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was published notifying that the area of land (including the land of the respondent) was likely to be needed by the State Government for a public purpose. By a composite notification u/s. 6 and sec. By a composite notification u/s. 6 and sec. 17(1) and (4) dated 16.05.1964, the State of Himachal Pradesh declared that the land was needed for a public purpose, that since it was required urgent, the enquiry u/s. 5-A of the Act was dispensed with, and that possession of the land will be taken u/s. 17(1) of the Act after the expiry of fifteen days from the publication of the notice under S. 9(1) of the Act. The Collector of Mahasu then served notices under S. 9 of the Land Acquisition Act in June 1964. On 5.10.1965, the Government of Himachal Pradesh published an order cancelling the notification dated 31.03.1964, and 16.05.1964 for acquisition of land for a public purpose. (2) The respondent then presented a petition before the Judicial Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh, for a writ quashing the notification dated 5.10.1965, withdrawing and cancelling the previous notifications and for writ of mandamus directing the authorities of the State Government to act according to law and discharge the duties cast by law upon them in the matter of determination of compensation for compulsory and urgent acquisition. The petition was granted by the Judicial Commissioner. In the view of the Judicial Commissioner when the notification u/s. 17(1) and (4) was issued, and possession was taken by the State Government, the land vested in the Government and it was not competent to the State Government thereafter to withdraw the notifications in exercise of the power u/s. 48 of the Land Acquisition Act. Against the order of the Judicial Commissioner, this appeal has been preferred with special leave. (3) The Solicitor-General appearing on behalf of the State contended that u/s. 21 of the General Clauses Act the State has the power to cancel the notifications at any time, and that sec. 48 of the Land Acquisition Act did not trench upon that power. Under the Land Acquisition Act a notification u/s. 4 of the Act may be issued by the appropriate Government that any land is needed or is likely to be needed for a public purpose. Unless the inquiry u/s. 5-A is dispensed with, any person interested in the land notified may object to the acquisition of the land, or of any land in the locality. On the objections made, the Collector holds an inquiry after giving the object or an opportunity of being heard, and makes a report. Unless the inquiry u/s. 5-A is dispensed with, any person interested in the land notified may object to the acquisition of the land, or of any land in the locality. On the objections made, the Collector holds an inquiry after giving the object or an opportunity of being heard, and makes a report. The appropriate Government many, if satisfied, after considering the report, if any, of the Collector u/s. 5-A (2), make a declaration that the land is needed for a public purpose. The declaration is conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public purpose. Then follows an inquiry as to the amount of compensation payable to the owner of the land and to the other claimants. If the land is waste or arable, the Government may in case of urgency dispense with the inquiry u/s. 5-A and direct that possession may be taken on the expiration of fifteen days after publication of the notice under S. 9 (1) of the Act even though no award of compensation is made by the Collector. When possession is taken the land vests exclusively in the Government free from all encumbrances. (4) In the present case a notification u/s. 17 (1) and (4) was issued by the State Government and possession which had previously been taken must, from the date of expiry of fifteen days from the publication of the notice under S. 9 (1), be deemed to be in the possession of the Government. We are unable to agree that where the Government has obtained possession illegally or under some unlawful transaction and a notification u/s. 17 (1) is issued the land does not vest in the Government free from all encumbrances. We are of the view that when a notification u/s. 17(1) is issued, on the expiration of fifteen days from the publication of the notice mentioned in S. 9 (1), the possession previously obtained will be deemed to be the possession of the Government u/s. 17(1) of the Act and the land will vest in the Government free from all encumbrances. (5) It is true that the notification issued by the State of Himachal Pradesh u/s. 17(1) & (4) does not recite that the land notified was "waste or arable". But it was not contended before the Judicial Commissioner that the Government issued the notification u/s. 17 (1) & (4) without authority. (5) It is true that the notification issued by the State of Himachal Pradesh u/s. 17(1) & (4) does not recite that the land notified was "waste or arable". But it was not contended before the Judicial Commissioner that the Government issued the notification u/s. 17 (1) & (4) without authority. Power under sub-sections (1) & (4) of sec. 17 may be only exercised when the land is waste or arable, and the Government having issued the notification, it will not be open to them to contend for the first time at this stage that the land of the respondent was not waste or arable and the notifications were unauthorised. (6) Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act by the first sub-sec. provides: "Except in the case provided for in section 36, the Government shall be at liberty to withdraw from the acquisition of any land of which possession has not been taken." Power to cancel a notification for compulsory acquisition is, it is true, not affected by sec. 48 of the Act: by a notification u/s. 21 of the General Clauses Act, the Government may cancel or rescind the notifications issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. But the power u/s. 21 the General Clauses Act cannot be exercised after the land statutorily vests in the State Government. (7) In State of Madhya Pradesh V/s. Vishnu Prasad Sharma, 1966-3 SCR 557 on which reliance was placed, the only question which fell to be considered by the Court was whether a notification u/s. 4(1) may be followed by successive notifications under section 6 for small parts of the land comprised in one notification issued u/s. 4. The Court rejected the contention that State was invested with such a power. In considering the argument the Court referred to the power to cancel the notification u/s. 21 of the General Clauses Act, apart from the power conferred by sec. 48 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Court observed: "Section 48 (1) is a special provision for those cases where proceedings for acquisition have gone beyond the stage of the issue of notice under section 9(1) and it provides for payment of compensation u/s. 48 (2) read with sec. 48 (3). We cannot x x accept the argument that without an order u/s. 48 (1) the notification u/s. 4 must remain outstanding. 48 (3). We cannot x x accept the argument that without an order u/s. 48 (1) the notification u/s. 4 must remain outstanding. It can be cancelled at any time by Government u/s. 21 of the General Clauses Act and what sec. 48 (1) shows is that once Government has taken possession it cannot withdraw from the acquisition. Before that it may cancel the notification u/s. 4 and 6 or it may withdraw from the acquisition u/s. 48 (1). If no notice has been issued u/s. 9 (1) all that the Government has to do is to pay for the damage caused as provided in sec. 5; if on the other hand a notice has been issued u/s. 9(1), damage has also to be paid in accordance with the provisions of sec. 48 (2) and (3)." But these observations do not assist the case of the appellant. It is clearly implicit in the observations that after possession has been taken pursuant to a notification u/s. 17 (1) the land is vested in the Government, and the notification cannot be cancelled u/s. 21 of the General Clauses Act, nor can the notification be withdrawn in exercise of the powers u/s. 48 of the Land Acquisition Act. Any other view would enable the State Government to circumvent the specific provision by relying upon a general power. When possession of the land is taken u/s. 17 (1), the land vests in the Government. There is no provision by which land statutorily vested in the Government reverts to the original owner by mere cancellation of the notification. (8) The appeal, fails and is dismissed with costs". (iii) Satendra Prasad Jain Vs. State of U.P. reported in (1993) 4 SCC 369 . "(1) Leave granted. Heard. (2) This appeal impugns the Judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants. (3) The appellants were the owners of land admeasuring approximately 29 bighas situated in Patti Baru, Baraut in Meerut district in the State of Uttar Pradesh. A notification u/s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") in respect of the said land was issued on 29.07.1986. The acquisition was purported for the planned development and construction of the Mandi of the Agriculture Market Produce Samiti, Baraut. The notification stated that, in view of the urgency of the public purpose, sec. The acquisition was purported for the planned development and construction of the Mandi of the Agriculture Market Produce Samiti, Baraut. The notification stated that, in view of the urgency of the public purpose, sec. 17(4) of the said Act was applied and the provisions of sec. 5A were dispensed with. On 24.10.1986 the sec. 6 declaration was issued which applied to the said land the provisions of sec. 17(1). It stated that the Collector of Meerut could, though no award u/s. 11 had been made, on the expiration of fifteen days from the date of publication of the notice u/s. 9(1), take possession of the said land. The sec. 9(1) notice was published on 2.12.1986. The appellant impugned the acquisition proceedings by filing a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court (being Writ Petition No. 1841 of 1986). The same was dismissed by a Division Bench on 19.01.1987. The Judgment upheld the acquisition proceedings. It found that there was urgency in the public purpose for which the said land was acquired and that the Krishi Utpandan Mandi Samiti (the third respondent before us) had the means to construct the market yard and godowns. On 27.02.1987 the possession of the land was taken by the first and second respondents from the appellants and handed over to the third respondent. A Special Leave Petition filed before this Court by the appellants against the aforementioned Judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court was dismissed on 19.04.1987. (4) On 13.01.1989 the third respondent resolved to exclude from acquisition the land at Patti Baru, including the said land. The resolution stated that this was because of shortage of funds and because the proposed Mandi site was far away from Baraut. (5) On 10.08.1989 the appellants filed the writ petition whereon the impugned Judgment and order was made. The writ petition prayed that the respondents, namely, the State of Uttar Pradesh (the first respondent), the Collector, Meerut, (the second respondent) and the Krishi Utpandan Mandi Samiti (the third respondent) be directed by a writ of mandamus to make and publish an award in respect of the said land. The writ petition prayed that the respondents, namely, the State of Uttar Pradesh (the first respondent), the Collector, Meerut, (the second respondent) and the Krishi Utpandan Mandi Samiti (the third respondent) be directed by a writ of mandamus to make and publish an award in respect of the said land. (6) On 27.06.1990 the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Meerut wrote to the third respondent recording that compensation for the purpose of making an award in respect of the lands at Baru Patti had been claimed from the third respondent but that the third respondent had not made the monies available. As a result, after adjusting the time taken in the writ proceedings before the High Court, the period of two years had expired on. 18.01.1989. There was a clear order of the first respondent that in case the award was not declared within two years from the date of publication of the notification u/s. 6 the acquisition proceedings would lapse. (7) On 8.02.1991 the writ petition was dismissed by the High Court. The High Court noted that it was the appellants' own case that more than two years had elapsed since the date of issue of the notification u/s. 4. In view of this and by reason of the provisions of sec. 11A, the entire proceedings for acquisition of the said land had lapsed. The High Court noted that counsel on behalf of the appellants had relied upon the fact that even in the absence of an award possession of the said land had been taken. The High Court held that by the mere fact that possession had been taken in pursuance of sec. 17(1), the necessity of giving an award, as mandated by sec. 11A, within a period of two years from the date of publication of the notification u/s. 4 could not be dispensed with. (8) Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that upon the taking of possession of the said land under the provisions of sec. 17(1) the land vested absolutely in the first respondent and the first respondent had become its owner. It had been held by this Court that where possession had been taken the Government was not at liberty to withdraw from the acquisition either under the provisions of sec. 48 or by utilising the provisions of the General Clauses Act, sec. 17(1) the land vested absolutely in the first respondent and the first respondent had become its owner. It had been held by this Court that where possession had been taken the Government was not at liberty to withdraw from the acquisition either under the provisions of sec. 48 or by utilising the provisions of the General Clauses Act, sec. 11A had to be interpreted harmoniously with the other provisions of the said Act and could not apply where the proceedings for acquisition of the land had already come to an end by reason of the land having vested in the Government. (9) Learned counsel for the first and second respondents fairly stated that an award would be made within such time as the Court considered reasonable. (10) Learned counsel for the third respondent supported the reasoning of the Judgment under appeal. He also submitted that the requirements of sec. 17(3A), namely, the tender of 80 per cent of the estimated compensation for the said land not having been complied with, the taking of possession of the said land from the appellants was illegal and there was, therefore, no vesting thereof in the first respondent. He submitted that for being kept out possession of the said land the payment of compensation to the appellants u/s. 5 would adequately recompense them. (11) Sec. 4 of the said Act requires the publication of a notification that it appears to the appropriate Government that certain land is needed or is likely to be needed for a public purpose. Thereupon an officer authorised by the Government may enter upon the land to survey it and do all other acts necessary to ascertain whether the land is suitable for the public purpose, sec. 5 requires the payment of estimated compensation to the owner for damage done in entering upon the land and doing such acts as are necessary to ascertain whether it can be used for the public purpose. Under the provisions of sec. 5A I any person interested in the land may raise objections to the proposed acquisition. Upon considering the report of the Collector who hears such objections, if the Government is satisfied that the land is needed for the public purpose, a declaration to that effect shall be made under the provisions of sec. 6, sec. Under the provisions of sec. 5A I any person interested in the land may raise objections to the proposed acquisition. Upon considering the report of the Collector who hears such objections, if the Government is satisfied that the land is needed for the public purpose, a declaration to that effect shall be made under the provisions of sec. 6, sec. 9(1) contemplates the issue of a notice that the Government intends to take possession of the land and it must invite claims for compensation for all interests in the land. The Collect or must inquire into the claims under the provisions of sec. 11 and make an award of compensation in favour of the persons found interested in the land. sec. 16 states that the Collector may, after he has made an award u/s. 11, "take possession of the land which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances." sec. 11A was inserted in the said Act by Net 68 of 1984 and it reads thus: "11A. Period within which an award shall be made- The Collector shall make an award u/s. 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." The provisions of sec. 48(1) may also be noted. It states that "the Government shall be at liberty to withdraw from the acquisition of any land of which possession has not been taken." (12) Sec. 17 provides for cases where there is urgency. The relevant provisions for our purposes read thus: "17. Special powers in cases of urgency.-(1) In cases of urgency, whenever the appropriate Government so directs, the Collector, though no such award has been made may, on the expiration of fifteen days from the publication of the notice mentioned in sec. 9, sub-sec. (1), take possession of any land needed for public purpose. Such land shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government, free from all encumbrances. (3A) Before taking possession of any land under sub-see. (1) or sub-sec. (2), the Collector shall, without prejudice to the provisions of sub-sec. 9, sub-sec. (1), take possession of any land needed for public purpose. Such land shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government, free from all encumbrances. (3A) Before taking possession of any land under sub-see. (1) or sub-sec. (2), the Collector shall, without prejudice to the provisions of sub-sec. (3),- (a) tender payment of eighty per centum of the compensation for such land as estimated by him to the persons interested entitled thereto, and (b) pay it to them, unless prevented by some one or more of the contingencies mentioned in sec. 31, sub-sec. (2). and where the Collector is so prevented, the provisions of Sec. 31, sub-sec. (2), (except the second proviso thereto), shall apply as they apply to the payment of compensation under that section. (3-B) The amount paid or deposited under sub-sec. (3-A) shall be taken into account for determining the amount of compensation required to be tendered under Sec. 31, and where the amount so paid or deposited exceeds the compensation awarded by the Collector under Sec. 11, the excess may, unless refunded within three months from the date of the Collector's award, be recovered as an arrear of land revenue. (4) In the case of any land to which, in the opinion of the appropriate Government, the provisions of sub-sec. (1) or sub-sec. (2) are applicable, the appropriate Government may direct that the provisions of Sec. 5-A shall not apply, and, if it does so direct, a declaration may be made under Sec. 6 in respect of the land at any time after the date of the publication of the notification under Sec. 4, sub-sec. (1)." (13) There are two judgments of this Court which we must note. In Rajasthan Housing Board V/s. Shri Kishan it was held that Government could not withdraw from acquisition under Sec. 48 once it had taken possession of the land. In Lt. Governor of Himachal Pradesh V/s. Avinash Sharma, 1971 1 SCR 413 , it was held that "after possession has been taken pursuant to a notification under Sec. 17(1) the land is vested in the Government and the notification cannot be cancelled under Sec. 21 of the General Clauses Act, nor can the notification be withdrawn in exercise of the powers under Sec. 48 of the Land Acquisition Act. Any other view would enable the State Government to circumvent the specific provision by relying upon a general power. Any other view would enable the State Government to circumvent the specific provision by relying upon a general power. When possession of the land is. taken under Sec. 17(1), the land vests in the Government. There is no provision by which land statutorily vested in the Government reverts to the original owner by mere cancellation of the notification." (14) Ordinarily, the Government can take possession of the land proposed to be acquired only after an award of compensation in respect thereof has been made under Sec. 11. Upon the taking of possession the land vests in the Government, that is to say, the owner of the land loses to the Government the title to it. This is what Sec. 16 states. The provisions of Sec. 11-A are intended to benefit the land owner and ensure that the award is made within a period of two years from the date of the Sec. 6 declaration. In the ordinary case, therefore, when Government fails to make an award within two years of the declaration under Sec. 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 Sec. 11-A, lapse. When Sec. 17(1) is applied by reason of urgency. Government takes possession of the land prior to the making of the award under Sec. 11 and thereupon the owner is divested of the title to the land which is vested in the Government. Sec. 17(1) states so in unmistakable terms. Clearly, Sec. 11-A can have no application to cases of acquisitions under Sec. 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. (15) Further, Sec. 17(3-A) postulates that the owner will be offered an amount equivalent to 80 per cent of the estimated compensation for the land before the Government takes possession of it under Sec. 17(1). Sec. 11-A 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 per cent of the estimated compensation. Sec. 11-A 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 per cent of the estimated compensation. (16) In the instant case, even that 80 per cent of the estimated compensation was not paid to the appellants although Sec. 17(3-A) required that it should have been paid before possession of the said land was taken but that does not mean that the possession was taken illegally or that the said land did not thereupon vest in the 1st respondent. It is, at any rate, not open to the third respondent, who, as the letter of the Special Land Acquisition Officer dated 27.06.1990 shows, failed to make the necessary monies available and who has been in occupation of the said land ever since its possession was taken, to urge that the possession was taken illegally and that, therefore, the said land has not vested in the first respondent and the first respondent is under no obligation to make an award. (17) There is no merit whatsoever in the submission that compensation can be awarded to the appellants under Sec. 5. Sec. 5 postulates payment of compensation for damage done to land during the course of surveying it and doing all other acts necessary to ascertain whether it is capable of being adapted for a public purpose. Sec. 5 has no application to the instant case. (18) In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order under appeal is set aside. The Rule is made absolute and the first and second respondents are directed by a writ of mandamus to make and publish an award in respect of the said land within twelve weeks from today. (19) The third respondent shall pay to the appellants the costs of the appeal quantified in the sum of Rs. 10,000.00. (iv) K.N. Aswathnarayana Setty Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2014) 15 SCC 394 , paragraph- 8. "8. It is not necessary to discuss the cases cited as each case depends on the facts of its own. So far as law is concerned, it is well-settled that once the land is vested in Government, no writ is maintainable. 10,000.00. (iv) K.N. Aswathnarayana Setty Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2014) 15 SCC 394 , paragraph- 8. "8. It is not necessary to discuss the cases cited as each case depends on the facts of its own. So far as law is concerned, it is well-settled that once the land is vested in Government, no writ is maintainable. It is also settled that once possession has been taken, the validity of notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6(1) cannot be gone into. Therefore, interference with the acquisition and quashing of notification cannot be sustainable on the ground that the exercise of power under Section 17(4) of the Act is invalid. It is also settled, in finding the ratio decidendi of the case, the judgment should be considered as a whole in the light of the questions involved in the case, but not the stray words and sentences in the judgment, de hors the context. It is also well-settled that the Government has power to invoke Section 48(1) for denotifying the acquisition proceedings, provided possession has not been taken. So far as the principle of res judicata is concerned, it is well-settled that a subsequent petition is not maintainable if a former petition on the same cause of action has been dismissed on merits. So also, as far as the principle of constructive res judicata is concerned, it is well- settled in view of Explanation IV to Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code that any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit. This legal position has not been disputed. It is also not necessary to extract the paragraphs of the decision in State Government Houseless Harijan Employees' Association's case, supra, relied on by the respective parties". The learned counsel also cited the judgments passed in the following cases but since the same are cited on the same point I do not think it necessary to reproduce them. (i) Collector (LA) Vs. Andaman Timber Industries reported in (2014)16 SCC 780, paras-2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10. (ii) Laxmi Devi Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2015) 10 SCC 241 , paras-25, 26.1, 26.2, 26.3, 27, 30 and 31. (iii) Mahadeo Vs. (i) Collector (LA) Vs. Andaman Timber Industries reported in (2014)16 SCC 780, paras-2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10. (ii) Laxmi Devi Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2015) 10 SCC 241 , paras-25, 26.1, 26.2, 26.3, 27, 30 and 31. (iii) Mahadeo Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2013) 4 SCC 524 , paras- 3 to 6, 15 and 16. (iv) Kusheshwar Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2007) 11 SCC 477, paras- 12 and 14. 9. Mr. Yangerwati, learned CGC who appeared on behalf of the respondents no. 1, 2 & 3 submitted that the Central Government agencies, instrumentalities or office cannot acquired land for themselves in Nagaland, therefore, when land is needed by them the State Government is requested to acquire the land and thereafter, give the same to them on lease. In this case also it is the State Government who should first pay the award and lease the same to Project SEWAK. 10. The learned CGC cited the following Office Memorandum, Notifications issued by the Government of Nagaland, Land Revenue department. The contains of; (i) O.M. dated 7.5.1991, (ii) Notification dated 21.2.2005, and (iii) Notification dated 12.01.2005 are reproduced here below;- "Government of Nagaland Land Revenue Department No. LR/16-37/72 Dated, Kohima, the 7th March'91 Office Memorandum 1. In partial modification of this Deptt. No. O.M. No. LR/16-37/72 dt. 6-5-80, the Governor of Nagaland is pleased to state that henceforth land required by Central Government agencies or other parties for purposes consider to be in the public interest, shall be leased out to this agencies on payment of a premium equivalent to the cost of compensation paid to the landowners for acquisition of the land and on payment of annual rent as per rate as may be prescribed from time to time, the period of lease will be decided by the Deputy Commissioner but shall not exceed 50 years initially. 2. The leases shall be executed by the Central Govt. Agencies of other parties as the case may be with the Deputy Commissioner of the District where the land has been acquired. The latter shall do so as representative of the State Govt. two copies of the Agreement as so executed shall be endorsed for record to the Govt. in the Land & Revenue Department and one copy to the Director Land Record & Survey, Nagaland Dimapur. The latter shall do so as representative of the State Govt. two copies of the Agreement as so executed shall be endorsed for record to the Govt. in the Land & Revenue Department and one copy to the Director Land Record & Survey, Nagaland Dimapur. The lease deed should also be registered. 3. The Deed of Lease shall be as prescribed in Annexure. Sd/- Imtikumzuk Addl. Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland." "Government of Nagaland Land Revenue Department No. LR/2-21/88 Dated Kohima, the 21st Feb., 2005. Notification On the recommendation of the State Capital Complex Authority and reiteration of this Department's earlier O.M. No. LR/16-37/72 dated 13.03.1991, the Governor of Nagaland is pleased to order and notify the following policies in connection with the land required by the Central Govt. Departments and Agencies and leasing out of land to them. 1. All the land required by the Central Govt. Departments and Central Govt. Agencies including Public Sector Undertaking of the Union Govt. or other parties for the purposes considered to be in the public interest shall be first acquired by the State Government and lease out to the concerned department or Agency or party subject to approval of Government. 2. The lessee shall pay to the Govt. a premium equivalent to the cost of compensation paid to the land owners plus on payment of annual land rent as per rate as may be prescribed from time to time. 3. The period of lease shall not to exceed 50(fifty) years initially which may be considered for extension later on. 4. A copy of the Lease Deed executed shall be sent to the Govt. i.e., Land Revenue Department for Records and a copy of each of the same be endorsed to the office of the Commissioner, Nagaland, Kohima and the Directorate of Land Records & Survey, Nagaland, Dimapur for records. 5. The Deputy Commissioner of the District where the land in question falls under his/her jurisdiction shall execute the lease deed with the authorized officer of the Central Govt. Department or Agency etc. on behalf of the State Government." (M. Yanthan) Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland." "Government of Nagaland Land Revenue Department Notification Dated, Kohima, the 21st Jan., 2006. No. LR/2-21/88 : Whereas the Governor of Nagaland is pleased to reiterate this Department's earlier Notification No. LR. Department or Agency etc. on behalf of the State Government." (M. Yanthan) Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland." "Government of Nagaland Land Revenue Department Notification Dated, Kohima, the 21st Jan., 2006. No. LR/2-21/88 : Whereas the Governor of Nagaland is pleased to reiterate this Department's earlier Notification No. LR. 16-37/72, dated 13.03.91 in concoction with the land required by the Central Government Departments and Agencies vide this Department's Notification of even No. 21.02.05 and wherein it was already notified that all the land required by the Central Govt. Departments and its Agencies including Public Sector undertakings of the Union Government or other parties shall be first acquired by the State Government and lease out to the concern Department or Agency or Party subject to approval of the Government for 50(fifty) years initially. 2. And whereas the Governor of Nagaland is pleased to reiterate this Department's earlier order No. LR/2-24/84 dated 29.08.89 to charge Rs. 200/- per acre per annum as temporary occupation Fee (Land Rent) on Public Lands as well as Government Acquired Lands which are under occupation of or to be occupied by the leasee i.e. the Central Government Departments/Agencies/parties in Nagaland. 3. Now therefore, the Governor of Nagaland is pleased to order and notify that all the Central Government Deptts. and Agencies including the Public Sector Undertakings of the Union Government as well as the Private Sector Undertakings of Non-Indegenious origin who are already obtained Land allotment from Deputy Commissioners of various Districts shall be converted into Lease Deed and those Departments or Organisations etc who are not looking for land may do so on payment of Land Premium plus Land rent. 4. The Deputy Commissioner are therefore directed to initiate Lease Agreement with those of the Central Govt. Department/Agencies/Parties in their respective District to set the land and Revenue Records in a correct perspective state of affairs from now onward." (M. Yanthan) Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland." 11. The learned counsel further submitted that since the State Policy is very clear from the above O.M. and notifications, it is the State Government who should acquire the land first and only thereafter, lease it out to the Project SEWAK. The learned counsel in support of his submission cited a judgment passed by the High Court which is reported in (2013) 2 GLT 1102. The learned counsel in support of his submission cited a judgment passed by the High Court which is reported in (2013) 2 GLT 1102. The learned CGC also submitted that as the time passes the Project SEWAK is no longer in need of the whole land but only a piece of it and the same has been communicated to the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, therefore Project SEWAK will not be in a position to take the whole land. 12. The learned Sr. Addl. Advocate General, Mr. K. Sema who represents the State of Nagaland submitted that at the last paragraph of the order of the award passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, in Land Acquisition Case No. REV-17/2005- D/2012/1442, the Project SEWAK was directed to deposit the award amount of Rs. 7,69,45120/- within 30 days and not the State Government therefore, there was no need for the state Government to file appeal. However, for the Union of India, since the directions were given to them and no appeal was preferred by them the principle of estoppels if at all applicable will apply against them. 13. The learned Sr. Addl. Adv. General also submitted that the Project SEWAK wrote a letter dated 07.04.2014, addressed to the Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Land Revenue department, and in that letter it was stated that once the sanction is accorded and the funds are released payment of the award amount to Mrs. Anie Paira, the land owner shall be made. This was a letter written in pursuant to a legal notice served by the petitioner. Therefore, the State Government was hoping that the compensation amount will be deposited by the Union Government to the State Government so that the compensation awarded by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur can be paid. However, only after they have filed their affidavit the State Government came to know that the Project SEWAK is no longer interested to acquire the whole land. The land was acquired on the request of the Project SEWAK and the State has no need of the same. Therefore, whatever amount of rent and compensation that may have accrued to the petitioner for the use of her land by the Project SEWAK for the last 5 years the same has to be paid by the latter who have been in occupation of the same. Therefore, whatever amount of rent and compensation that may have accrued to the petitioner for the use of her land by the Project SEWAK for the last 5 years the same has to be paid by the latter who have been in occupation of the same. He also submitted that if the petitioner had not filed this writ petition and the matter not remained subjudice the State would have issued necessary notification re leasing the land to the petitioner. 14. The learned Sr. Addl. Advocate General further submitted that the State Government is not bound by the award since the acquisition proceedings has not been completed in terms of the section 10 of the Nagaland Land (Requisition and Acquisition Act), 1965. According to the learned counsel, after the order acquiring the land was issued under section 9 of the Act, the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur was required to take possession of the land under section 10 of the same act Only when that happens the land so acquired can be said to have been vested absolutely in the State Government. But since such event has never taken place the land acquisition proceeding has not been completed therefore, the State Government cannot be bound by order of the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur. The learned Sr. Addl. AG further submitted that moreover, no notification has ever been issued in the official gazette as required under section 10 of the Nagaland (Requisition and Acquisition of land) Act 1965, unless such notification is published in the official gazette the proceeding of land acquisition is not fully complete. The learned counsel further submitted that since the acquisition of the petitioner's land was undertaken under the provision of section 9 which provides for speedy acquisition of land, and for which section 10 specifically provides the procedure, the provisions of section 10 has to be scrupulously followed. But since the provision of section 10 has not been followed, the State Government is very much within its right to release the land of the petitioner. The learned Sr. Addl. A.G submitted a settle principle of law in support of his submission which says that when a particular way of doing a thing is prescribed or provided under an Act the same has to be done in the same way as prescribed or provided otherwise the action so taken will not be a valid action. The learned Sr. Addl. Addl. A.G submitted a settle principle of law in support of his submission which says that when a particular way of doing a thing is prescribed or provided under an Act the same has to be done in the same way as prescribed or provided otherwise the action so taken will not be a valid action. The learned Sr. Addl. Advocate General further submitted that for publication in the official gazette no time limit is given in the Act, as such, even though 5 years has gone by after the order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, since the same has not been notified the State Government is not barred from releasing the land of the petitioner. The learned Sr. Addl. Advocate General also submitted that since the compensation award has not been paid, the land acquisition proceeding should have been deemed to have lapsed. The learned counsel cited the judgment passed in the case of J. Jayalalithaa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. reported in (2014) 2 SCC 401 , paragraph-34 and 35. "34 There is yet an uncontroverted legal principle that when the statute provides for a particular procedure, the authority has to follow the same and cannot be permitted to act in contravention of the same. In other words, where a statute requires to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way and not contrary to it at all. Other methods or mode of performance are impliedly and necessarily forbidden. The aforesaid settled legal proposition is based on a legal maxim "Expressio unius est exclusio alterius", meaning thereby that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular way, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner and following any other course is not permissible. 35. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Singhara Singh & Ors., AIR 1964 SC 358 , this court held as under: "8. The rule adopted in Taylor v. Taylor (1876) 1 Ch D 426 is well recognized and is founded on sound principle. Its result is that if a statute has conferred a power to do an act and has laid down the method in which that power has to be exercised, it necessarily prohibits the doing of the act in any other manner than that which has been prescribed. Its result is that if a statute has conferred a power to do an act and has laid down the method in which that power has to be exercised, it necessarily prohibits the doing of the act in any other manner than that which has been prescribed. The principle behind the rule is that if this were not so, the statutory provision might as well not have been enacted." The learned counsel cited in the case of Municipal Board, Pushkar Vs. State Transport Authority, Rajasthan & Ors. reported in AIR 1965 SC 458 , para-24 in support of his submission. "24. There is considerable force therefore in the argument that if the legislature had intended that an application for revision under s. 64A may be made within 30 days from the date of intimation or knowledge of the order to the aggrieved person it would have said so; and in the absence of any such thing the court is bound to hold that the application will be barred unless made within 30 days from the date of the order by which the person is aggrieved. This still leaves open for investigation the problem as to what is the date of the order. According to the appellant the date when the Regional Transport Authority passed the resolution is the date of the order. Against this it is urged on behalf of the bus operators that it is the date when that resolution was brought into effect by the publication of the notification which should be considered to be the date of the order. In our opinion, the respondents' contention should be accepted. For, it is a fallacy to think that the date when the Regional Transport Authority passed the resolution was the date on which the fixation of the new-bus-stand or the discontinuance of the old bus stand was ordered. It has to be remembered in this connection that Rule 134 itself contemplates that the fixation or alteration of bus stands would be made by a notification. It is only on such notification that a notified bus stand comes into existence. So long as the notification is not made there is in law no effective fixation of a new bus stand or discontinuance of the old bus stand". The learned counsel also cited the following judgments published in different journals in support of his submission;- (i) Banda Development Authority, Banda Vs. So long as the notification is not made there is in law no effective fixation of a new bus stand or discontinuance of the old bus stand". The learned counsel also cited the following judgments published in different journals in support of his submission;- (i) Banda Development Authority, Banda Vs. Moti Lal Agarwal & Ors. reported in (2011) 5 SCC 394 , para- 37. "37. The principles which can be culled out from the above noted judgments are: i) No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to what act would constitute taking of possession of the acquired land, ii) If the acquired land is vacant, the act of the concerned State authority to go to the spot and prepare a panchnama will ordinarily be treated as sufficient to constitute taking of possession. iii) If crop is standing on the acquired land or building/structure exists, mere going on the spot by the concerned authority will, by itself, be not sufficient for taking possession. Ordinarily, in such cases, the concerned authority will have to give notice to the occupier of the building/structure or the person who has cultivated the land and take possession in the presence of independent witnesses and get their signatures on the panchnama. Of course, refusal of the owner of the land or building/structure may not lead to an inference that the possession of the acquired land has not been taken. iv) If the acquisition is of a large tract of land, it may not be possible for the acquiring/designated authority to take physical possession of each and every parcel of the land and it will be sufficient that symbolic possession is taken by preparing appropriate document in the presence of independent witnesses and getting their signatures on such document. v) If beneficiary of the acquisition is an agency/instrumentality of the State and 80% of the total compensation is deposited in terms of Section 17(3A) and substantial portion of the acquired land has been utilized in furtherance of the particular public purpose, then the Court may reasonably presume that possession of the acquired land has been taken". (ii) Tamil Nadu Housing Board Vs. A. Viswami reported in (1996) 8 SCC 259 , para- 9. "9. (ii) Tamil Nadu Housing Board Vs. A. Viswami reported in (1996) 8 SCC 259 , para- 9. "9. It is settled law by series of judgment of this Court that one of the accepted modes of taking possession of the acquired land is recording of a memorandum or Panchanama by the LAO in the presence of witnesses signed by him/them and that would constitute taking possession of the land as it would be impossible to take physical possession of the acquired land. It is common knowledge that in some cases the owner/interested person may not co-operate in taking possession of the land". (iii) P. Girdharan Prasad Missir & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in AIR 1968 Patna 77 (V 55 C 27), para- 17. "17. It was then contended that land acquisition proceedings cannot be initiated in favour of a party who is already in possession of the lands. No authority has been cited in support of this view. If a person is in possession of a land, say as a lessee or mortgagee, with limited rights, there is no legal objection in his acquiring full rights over the land by acquisition proceedings, provided that the other conditions necessary for acquisition are satisfied. It is true that in such cases the delivery of possession required by section 16 of the of the Act may become somewhat notional or symbolical, but as already pointed out, the nature of the possession before acquisition and the nature of the possession required after acquisition are fundamentally different. I may in this connection refer to sections 35 and 36 of the Act which relate to temporary occupation of land for public purpose either by the Government or by a Company. The proviso to subsection (2) of section 36 authorises subsequent acquisition of the same land for the company as if it is needed permanently. Thus the Legislature has clearly envisaged a situation where a land which is already in the possession of a company may have to be subsequently acquired under the provisions of the Act for the same company. There is, therefore, nothing illegal in completing land acquisition proceedings in respect of the two plots, which, accordingly to the petitioners were already in the possession of respondent No. 2 as mortgages." (iv) Mrityunjoy Bose Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. There is, therefore, nothing illegal in completing land acquisition proceedings in respect of the two plots, which, accordingly to the petitioners were already in the possession of respondent No. 2 as mortgages." (iv) Mrityunjoy Bose Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in AIR 1967 Patna 286 (V 54 C 81), para- 53. "53. But as the validity of withdrawal from acquisition in respect of portions of the lands is under challenge before us, we have to decide whether the taking of possession as alleged by the petitioners even if believed would be a bar to withdrawal from acquisition under section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. As rightly pointed out by my learned Brother the taking of possession referred to in section 16, 17(1), 34 and 48(1) of the Act must be of the same nature. Hence, unless the petitioners can show that possession over that portion of the disputed lands which were notified as having been withdrawn from acquisition was of the nature required either by section 16 or section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, the legality of the order of withdrawal cannot be successfully challenged. I would agree with the contention of Mr. Lal Narain Sinha for the State of Bihar that the taking of possession either under section 16 or under section 17(1) is fundamentally different from the possession, if any, which the Government might have taken prior to the commencement of the acquisition proceedings. Possession for the purpose of section 16 and 17(1) must be possession as a full owner, in consequences of which the lands vest absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. It cannot be of the same nature as any previous possession which the Government might have take either as a lessee, or mortgagee, or licensee, or under some other colour of title or even as a trespasser. Though the Act is silent as to the mode of taking possession either under section 16 or section 17(1) of the Act, there seems no doubt that either actual occupation by the Collector or his agents, or taking symbolic possession (where actual possession is already with the Collector), or doing something equivalent to effective possession is contemplated. Here admittedly no such formal taking of possession either under section 16 or under section 17(1) has been alleged to have been done. Here admittedly no such formal taking of possession either under section 16 or under section 17(1) has been alleged to have been done. The petitioners' case all along has been that by virtue of the appropriate notification under the Indian Forest Act and the absence of any resistance by the petitioners, the Forest Department took over actual possession from 1954. That possession cannot, therefore, be held to be possession for the purpose of section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Hence, there is no illegality in the withdrawal from acquisition in respect of a portion of the disputed lands." (v) State of UP Vs. Hari Ram reported in (2013) 2 SCR 301 , paras- 23, 24 and 25. "23. The expression "deemed to have been acquired" used as a deeming fiction under subsection (3) of section 10 can only mean acquisition of title or acquisition of interest because till that time the land may be either in the ownership of the person who held that vacant land or to possess such land as owner or as a tenant or as mortgages and so on as defined under section 2(1) of the Act. The word "vested" has not been defined in the Act, so also the word "absolutely" what is vested absolutely in only the land which is deemed to have acquired and nothing more. The word "vest" has different meaning in different context; especially when we examine the meaning of vesting on the basis of a statutory hypothesis of a deeming provision which Lord Hoffmann in Customs and Excise Commissioners v. Zielinski Baker and Partners (2004) 2 All E.R 141 (at 11) described as "heroic piece of deeming". 24. The word "vest" or "vesting" has different meaning Legal Glossary, published by Official Language (Legislative) Commission 1970 Edition at page 302: "Vest: 1. To give a person a legally fixed, immediate right or personal or future enjoyment of (an estate), to grant, endow, clothe with a particular authority, right of property. 2. To become legally vested; (T.P. Act) "Vesting order: An order under statutory authority whereby property is transferred to and vested, without conveyance in some person or person; Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition) 1990 at page 1563: "Vested: Fixed; accrued; settled, absolute, complete; Having the character or given the rights of absolute ownership, not contingent, not subject to be defeated by a condition precedent. Rights are "vested" when rights to enjoyment present or prospective has become property of some particular person or persons are present interest, mere expectancy or future or contingent interest in property founded on anticipated continuance of existing laws does not continue 'vested right" Vaughan v. Nadel; 228 Kan. 469, 618 p. 2d 778, 783. See also Accrue Vest and specific typed of vested interest infra." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, of the English Language unabridged, Volume III S to Z at page 2547 defines the word "vest" as follow; "Vest" vest...........To place or give into the possession of discretion of some person or authority (the regulation of the waterways...to give to a person a legally fixed immediate right of present or future enjoyment of (as an estate) (a deed that vests a title estate in the grantee and a remainder in his children) b. to grant endow, or clothe with a particular authority right or property.. to put (a person) in possession of land by the feudal ceremony of investiture..., to become legally vested (normally) title to real property vests in the holder of a property executed deed)" 25. Vest/vested, therefore, may or may not include "transfer of possession" the meaning of which depends on the context in which it has been placed and the interpretation of various other related provisions". (vi) Dayaprakash Trikambhai Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Barado reported in AIR 1969 Gujarat 34 (V 56 C7), para-10. "10. Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act states that' "When the Collector has made an award under section 11, he may take possession of the land, which shall thereupon (vest absolutely in the (Government), free from all encumbrances". It does not lay down any time limit within which the Collector is obliged to take possession after the declaration of the award. The Collector can take possession at his own sweet will. It is not certain as to when he will take possession. The claimant is not expected to keep his land uncultivated till the Collector decides to take possession of it. If the possession had not been taken prior to the reaping of these crops, no question of claiming any compensation. In regard to it would have arisen. It, therefore, cannot be said that the claimant could have anticipated these damages and could have claimed it. If the possession had not been taken prior to the reaping of these crops, no question of claiming any compensation. In regard to it would have arisen. It, therefore, cannot be said that the claimant could have anticipated these damages and could have claimed it. If the possession had not been taken prior to the reaping of these crops, the question of making any claim for these damages would not have arisen. In such an event, we are of the view that no such objections against this claim could be sustained on these grounds in a reference that could be made. The claimant in our opinion, is entitled to make such a claim." (vii) Dinshaw Italia Vs. State of Hyderabad reported in (S) AIR 1955 Hyderabad 203 (V. 42, C. 57 Sept), para-19. "19. We propose to examine the proceedings leading up to the award of 8th Sherewar 1354F in the light of the test laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court and to determine whether acquisition had taken place before the Constitution or whether an attempt to acquire the land and factory is in effect being made after the Constitution. Under the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act which is based upon the analogous provisions of the Indian Land Acquisition Act of 1894 the award is a mere tender of compensation made by the Collector to the owner of the land which is proposed to be acquired. The proceedings taken by the Collector are not judicial proceedings and his award not being a decree, cannot be enforced as such. It may be pointed out in this connection that the Government can discontinue proceedings under section 39 of the Act (corresponding to section 48, Indian Land Acquisition Act) at any time before taking possession of the property. If, however, acquisition is completed by taking possession under section 12 of the Act (corresponding to section 16, Indian Land Acquisition Act) the party is entitled to the compensation awarded by the Collector. It would therefore appear that taking possession of the property is an important element in the acquisition proceedings." (viii) The Fruit & Vegetable Merchants Union Vs. The Delhi Improvement Trust reported in AIR 1957 S.C 344 (V. 44 C 51 April), para-19. "19. That the word "vest" is a word of variable import is shown by provisions of Indian statues also. The Delhi Improvement Trust reported in AIR 1957 S.C 344 (V. 44 C 51 April), para-19. "19. That the word "vest" is a word of variable import is shown by provisions of Indian statues also. For example, section 56 of the Provincial Insolvency Act (5 of 1920) empowers the Court at the time of the making of the order of adjudication or thereafter to appoint a receiver for the property of the insolvent and further provides that "such property shall thereupon vests in the receiver." The property vests in the receiver for the purpose of administering the estate of the insolvent for the payment of his debts after realising his assets. The property of the insolvent vest in the receiver not for all purposes but only for the purpose of the Insolvency Act and the receiver has no interest of his own in the property. On the other hand, section 16 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act (Act 1 of 1894), provide that the property so acquired, upon the happening of certain events, shall "vest absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances". In the cases contemplated by section 16 and 17 the property acquired becomes the property of Government without any conditions or limitations either as to title or possession. The legislature has made it clear that the vesting of the property is not for any limited purpose or limited duration, it would thus appear that the word "vest" has not got a fixed connotation, meaning in all cases that the property is owned by the person or the authority in whom it vest. It may vest in title, or it may vest in possession, or it may vest in a limited sense, as indicated in the context in which it may have been used in a particular piece of legislation. The provisions of the Improvement Act, particularly section 45 to 49 and 54 and 54-A when they speak of a certain building or street or square or other land vesting in a municipality or other local body or in a trust, do not necessarily mean that ownership has passed to any of them". 15. Mr. The provisions of the Improvement Act, particularly section 45 to 49 and 54 and 54-A when they speak of a certain building or street or square or other land vesting in a municipality or other local body or in a trust, do not necessarily mean that ownership has passed to any of them". 15. Mr. Imti Longjem, learned counsel for the petitioner in reply submitted that the Project SEWAK has been in occupation of the land since 1962 continuously and when the lease was about to end the acquisition proceeding was started and settled before the end of the lease period, therefore, there was no need of taking fresh possession of the land after the acquisition. He also submitted that by the order dated 25.10.2012, of the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, the whole proceeding of acquisition of the land of the petitioner under section 9 & 10 of the Nagaland Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1965 has been completed the only thing left is for the respondents to discharge their obligation of paying the compensation amount. 16. I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case and also considered the submission of the learned counsels who appeared on behalf of the parties and also perused the judgments referred to by them. It is admitted fact that the Project SEWAK has been in possession of the land of the petitioner's since 1962 and the same was to end on 31.10.2012, but for the acquisition proceeding they have continued to be in possession of the same. It is also admitted fact that the Project SEWAK had requested both the Deputy Commissioner and the State Government on several occasions to acquire the land of the petitioner and to give them on lease and on their insistence the process for acquiring the land of the petitioner was initiated. The facts stated by the parties also shows that they had several meetings and as a result of the same they came to the conclusion that land of the petitioner has to be acquired. The facts stated by the parties also shows that they had several meetings and as a result of the same they came to the conclusion that land of the petitioner has to be acquired. It is also admitted fact that on the request of the Project SEWAK the State Government through the Secretary, Land Revenue Department vide letter dated 13.06.2011, had asked the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur to take necessary steps for acquiring the land of the petitioner, and the latter in pursuance of such direction had undertaken all the exercises required for the acquisition of the land of the petitioner and thereafter apprised the formal on the steps taken so far. It is also admitted by all that thereafter also the Project SEWAK requested the State Government and the Deputy Commissioner to expedite the acquisition proceeding as the lease period for the land was about to be expired and that the same was followed by correspondences and meetings between the stake holders which finally culminated in the drawing of the acquisition proceeding and passing of the order dated 25.19.2012, by the Deputy Commissioner. In view of the admitted facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the respondents, both under Central Government and the State Government cannot now turn around and say that they are no longer interested in the land, particularly when the Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 25.11.12, passed in Land Acquisition Case No. REV-17/2005-D/2012/1442, had completed the whole acquisition proceeding. The argument that since the Deputy Commissioner has not taken possession of the land and since no publication of the acquisition has been made in the Government gazette the land has not been vested on the Government, and the acquisition proceeding has not been completed does not seem to hold water when the end beneficiary i.e. Project SEWAK has continued to be in possession of the land even after the lease period ended because of the acquisition proceeding and order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur dated 25.10.2012. The argument appears to be based on more of hypothetical facts rather than on real facts and circumstances. From the judgments cited by the learned counsels, it can easily be understood that the word vested may mean different things under different facts and circumstances. It has to be interpreted according to the facts and circumstances of each case. The argument appears to be based on more of hypothetical facts rather than on real facts and circumstances. From the judgments cited by the learned counsels, it can easily be understood that the word vested may mean different things under different facts and circumstances. It has to be interpreted according to the facts and circumstances of each case. In some case it may mean symbolic taking over of the land and yet in some cases it may mean taking actual possession of the same. In this case, the land was acquired for the Project SEWAK and as stated above they have been in possession of the land since 1962 on lease and have continued to do so even after the lease period expired because of the acquisition proceeding and the order of the Deputy Commissioner passed in it. Therefore, there was no necessity for the Deputy Commissioner to take possession of it. It is deemed to have been taken possession of by the State Government, therefore, the same has been vested on it. 17. There is no doubt that the land was acquired under section 9 of the Nagaland Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1965. Section 9 is a provision for acquiring land expeditiously and Section 10 of the same Act provides the procedure for taking over the land acquired under section 9. For better appreciation, the two sections are reproduced here below;- "Speedy acquisition of land in certain case.-9. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained herein before, if in the opinion of the State Government or the Collector it is necessary or expedient to acquire speedily any land for public works [****] including any of the objects mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 3, the State Government or the Collector by order in writing acquire the land stating the area and boundaries thereof. (2) The Collector shall cause the order passed under sub-section (1) to be served in such manner as may be prescribed on the owner of the land and also the tenant or the occupant in cases where it is not in occupation of the land and also a notice to the same effect stating that claims to compensation for all interests in the land may be made to him within such time as may be prescribed: Provided that when the person to be so served is not readily traceable or the ownership of the land is in dispute, the Collector shall cause the above order and notice to be published in such manner as may be prescribed. Vesting and taking possessing of land acquired under section 9.-10. (1) When an order of acquisition is served or published under sub-section (2) of section 9, land shall vest absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances on the date the order is so served or published. (2) The Collector may, at any time after the land becomes so vested, proceed to take possession thereof. (3) On such vesting the order passed under sub-section (1) of section 9 shall be published in the Official Gazette in the manner prescribed. (2) The Collector may, at any time after the land becomes so vested, proceed to take possession thereof. (3) On such vesting the order passed under sub-section (1) of section 9 shall be published in the Official Gazette in the manner prescribed. Compensation.-11.(1) Subject to the provision of subsection (2) whenever any land is acquired under section 6 or section 9 there shall be paid compensation the amount of which shall be determined by the Collector, in determining the amount of compensation the Collector shall take into consideration the market value of the land for a period of five years preceding the date of publication of the notice under sub-section (1) of section 6 where the land is acquired under the said section and where the land is acquired under section 9 from the date of passing the order under sub-section (1) of the said section, and the amount of compensation payable shall be on the basis of the average market value so arrived at: Provided that where any building is acquired under section 6, the compensation shall be payable at the market value of the building on the date of publication of the notice under sub-section (1) thereof: "[Provided further that in addition to the market value of the land or building, as above provided, the Collector shall in every case award a sum 15% of such market value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition]1 ". 18. From the conjoint reading of the two sections, it would be clear that if State Government or Collector is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient to acquire a land speedily for public purpose it may do so by passing an order giving the proper description or boundary of the same. Thereafter, served a copy of the same to the owner and to the tenant if there is any. When such order is served to the owner of the land the land so acquired is deemed to have been vested with the Government on the date the same is served. And thereafter, the Collector may at any time take possession of the land so acquired and cause the order acquiring the land published in the official gazette. When such order is served to the owner of the land the land so acquired is deemed to have been vested with the Government on the date the same is served. And thereafter, the Collector may at any time take possession of the land so acquired and cause the order acquiring the land published in the official gazette. In this case, as can be seen from the order during the land acquisition proceeding before the Deputy Commissioner all the stake holders were present, therefore, there was no necessity of serving the order or issue notice to the petitioner as required under section 9 of the Act. Moreover, since the acquisition proceeding was drawn and the order was passed after a number of communications, meetings and negotiations between the parties, as the Deputy Commissioner recorded in the proceeding itself the Deputy Commissioner was right in stating in his order that there was no need of giving notice under section 9(2) of the Act since all the claims were settled. Keeping in view the fact that the Project SEWAK has been in possession of the land already and the manner and circumstances under which the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 25.10.2012, was passed this Court is of the opinion that the requirements of both the sections have been fulfilled. At the cost of repetition but for the sake of clarity it may be stated that since the land was acquired for the Project SEWAK and since they have already been in possession of the land there was no need for the Deputy Commissioner to take possession of the same as mentioned in section 10 of the Act. The provisions of the Law/Act has to be given pragmatic and realistic approach but not so much of hypotheticalities and technicalities should be imported in it as doing so would defeat the very purpose of it. 19. The Project SEWAK never denied that the land was acquired for them on their request. They even promised to pay the compensation once the sanction is accorded and the fund is released. This was clearly stated in the letter addressed to the Secretary to the Land Revenue department dated 7.4.2014. The contents of the letter have been already reproduced herein above. They even promised to pay the compensation once the sanction is accorded and the fund is released. This was clearly stated in the letter addressed to the Secretary to the Land Revenue department dated 7.4.2014. The contents of the letter have been already reproduced herein above. From the letter of the Project SEWAK it is clear that they have not denied that the land was acquired for them and they are willing to pay the amount of compensation awarded by the Deputy Commissioner. It is true that as per the O.M. dated 07.03.1991, Notification dated 21.02.2005 and Notification dated 21.01.2006, issued by the Govt. of Nagaland, Land Revenue Department (already given above), it is the State Government who should acquire the land first and thereafter lease to such agencies or instrumentalities of Central Government who requires the same but it is also equally true that the price of the land so acquired has to be borne by the beneficiary. Therefore, it makes no difference whether the State Government pay first and get reimbursed from the Project SEWAK or Project SEWAK pay straight to the Deputy Commissioner for handing over the same to land owner. 20. Before I part with this order I would like to state here that if, after all those communications, correspondences and negotiations which finally calumniated in the drawing of the proceeding and passing of the order by the Deputy Commissioner, the respondents are allowed to release the land, this Court cannot but wonder how people will trust them in future. When such promise is made it must be kept, specially, when it is made by the Governments and their instrumentalities. If such promise are not kept by the Governments be that at the Centre or State it will have cascading effect in the mind of the people. We live under democratic form of Government where people are the most important and whose trust in the Government is vital. Therefore, no room for breeding trust deficit between the people and the Governments should ever be created. Peoples' trust should never be taken for granted. In view of the above discussions and conclusions drawn, the Project SEWAK is directed to pay to the petitioner through the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur the compensation amount of Rs. Therefore, no room for breeding trust deficit between the people and the Governments should ever be created. Peoples' trust should never be taken for granted. In view of the above discussions and conclusions drawn, the Project SEWAK is directed to pay to the petitioner through the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur the compensation amount of Rs. 7,69,45,120/- along with interest as awarded by the order dated 25.10.2012, of the Deputy Commissioner/Collector Dimapur, passed in Land Acquisition Case No. REV-17/2005-D/2012/1442, within 6(six) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case, the Project SEWAK fails to do so in the time framed given, the Government of Nagaland should pay the same and get reimbursed from them. With this, the writ petition is disposed.