JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking declaration that Ext.P4 award has been lapsed as against the properties and buildings of the petitioners described as Holdings No.10, 11 and 12 in Ext.P4, and a further declaration that the petitioners are not liable to be dispossessed of their properties and buildings described in Ext.P4. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: 2. First petitioner is the owner in possession of 1 cent of land in R.S.No.33/7 of Pazhassi amsom, Mattannur desom and the buildings bearing No.VII/895 and VII/894, evident from Ext.P1. The 2nd petitioner is the owner of property covered by Ext.P2 document and the 3rd petitioner is the owner of property covered by Ext.P3. The Government of Kerala issued notification under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short, 'Act, 1894] and published in the Kerala Gazette dated 22.01.2005, proposing to acquire the properties belonging to the petitioners for the purpose of widening a road. Thereafter, a declaration under Sec.6 of the Act, 1894 was issued on 27.09.2006. 3. Finally, after conducting an award enquiry, award dated 21.10.2008 was passed by the 2nd respondent as Award No.128 of 2008, evident from Ext.P4. In Ext.P4, petitioners properties acquired were described as holdings No.10, 11 and 12 respectively. As per the award, Rs.2,47,156/-, Rs.4,79,985/- and Rs.6,40,027/- were fixed as compensation payable to the petitioners respectively. However, no compensation was paid to the petitioners or deposited in the name of the petitioners. The possession of the property was also not taken and the petitioners are still in possession of the properties proposed to be acquired as per Ext.P4. 4. Petitioners have approached the Mattannur Municipality for their rehabilitation on account of the acquisition of the property, and thereafter filed W.P.(C) No.20168 of 2010 before this Court and as per judgment dated 16.01.2014, this Court directed the respondents to conduct a survey as provided in the scheme for rehabilitation without hindrance to the acquisition proceedings, evident from Ext.P5. 4. Petitioners have approached the Mattannur Municipality for their rehabilitation on account of the acquisition of the property, and thereafter filed W.P.(C) No.20168 of 2010 before this Court and as per judgment dated 16.01.2014, this Court directed the respondents to conduct a survey as provided in the scheme for rehabilitation without hindrance to the acquisition proceedings, evident from Ext.P5. The contention advanced by the petitioners is that, the award was passed in the year 2008, compensation was not paid and the possession of the properties were not taken, and therefore, by virtue of Sec.24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [for short, 'Act, 2013'] will come into play and the lands acquired and award passed as per Ext.P4 shall be deemed to have lapsed. It is thus seeking appropriate reliefs, petitioners have filed this writ petition. 5. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the 2nd respondent, wherein, the contention raised by the petitioners with respect to the notifications, enquiry and the passage of award etc. etc. are not at all under dispute. It is also not under dispute, that, possession of the properties are not taken and amounts are not paid to the petitioners. The sole material contention raised in the counter affidavit is that, writ petition filed by the petitioners was pending before this Court as W.P. (C) No.20168 of 2010, and therefore, the respondents could not pay or deposit the amount, and the possession could not taken. Therefore, the period during which the writ petition was pending before this Court shall be excluded in contemplation of Sec.11A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. First respondent has also filed a counter affidavit in similar lines and contends that the petitioners are not entitled to get any relief as is sought for in the writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has heavily relied on Sec.24 of Act, 2013, dealing with “Land acquisition process under Act No.1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases”, which read thus: “24. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has heavily relied on Sec.24 of Act, 2013, dealing with “Land acquisition process under Act No.1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases”, which read thus: “24. Land acquisition process under Act No.1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894),-- (a) where no award under section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or (b) where an award under said section 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act: Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act.” 7. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, by virtue of the provisions contained under sub-section (2) of Sec.24, the proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed, since five years have elapsed from 21.10.2008, date of award and possession is not taken. However, on the contrary, learned Special Government Pleader submitted that, by virtue of Sec.11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the period during which W.P.(C) No.20168 of 2010 was pending before this Court is to be taken into account, and if so, petitioners are not entitled to get any relief in accordance with the provisions of Sec.24 of Act, 2013. However, on the contrary, learned Special Government Pleader submitted that, by virtue of Sec.11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the period during which W.P.(C) No.20168 of 2010 was pending before this Court is to be taken into account, and if so, petitioners are not entitled to get any relief in accordance with the provisions of Sec.24 of Act, 2013. Section 11A of Act, 1894 read thus: “11A. Period within which an award shall be made.--(1) The Collector shall make an award under section 11 within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse: Provided that in a case where the said declaration has been published before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, the award shall be made within a period of two years from such commencement. Explanation.--In computing the period of two years referred to in this section, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the said declaration is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded.” 8. I have considered the rival submissions made across the Bar and perused the pleadings and the documents on record. 9. On a reading of Explanation to Sec.11A of Act, 1894, it is specific and clear, in computing the period of two years under Sec.11A, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the said declaration, is stayed by an order of a Court, shall be excluded. Therefore, I have no doubt in my mind, that such period can be excluded only when there is a stay of the proceedings. The respondents have no case that, in the writ petition, there was any stay of the proceedings. Therefore, respondents are not entitled to get the benefit of the explanation contained under Sec.11A of Act, 1894. Moreover, as per sub-section (2) of Sec.24 of Act, 2013, the twin conditions prescribed for lapsing the acquisition proceedings are: (1) the award has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of Act, 2013, but, (2) the physical possession of the land has not been taken, or the compensation has not been paid. 10. Moreover, as per sub-section (2) of Sec.24 of Act, 2013, the twin conditions prescribed for lapsing the acquisition proceedings are: (1) the award has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of Act, 2013, but, (2) the physical possession of the land has not been taken, or the compensation has not been paid. 10. The fact discussions made above would make it clear that, all the conditions prescribed under sub-section (2) of Sec.24 of Act, 2013 are clearly applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case, and therefore, the petitioners are entitled to succeed in the writ petition in accordance with the provisions of Act, 2013. In that view of the matter, the writ petition will stand allowed, and there will be a declaration that the proceedings initiated against the petitioners have lapsed consequent to sub-section (2) of Sec.24, however, the Government will be at liberty to initiate any proceedings afresh in accordance with the provisions of Act, 2013. The writ petition is allowed to the above extent.