ORDER : BIREN VAISHNAV, J. 1. These petitions have been filed by the landowners of Village Koteshwar, aggrieved by the stand of the competent authorities in initiating acquisition proceedings qua their lands for the purposes of oil exploration by the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (for short 'ONGC'). Their grievance is that not only have the acquisition proceedings been undertaken in contravention of the mandate of Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 but also as no Awards under Section 11 have been declared, the proceedings be deemed to have lapsed, by virtue of the operation of Section 24 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 1894 Act' and 2013 Act' respectively). 2. Petitioners for Special Civil Application No.1865 of 2013 and Special Civil Application No.12425 of 2015 are same. 3. Special Civil Application No.1865 of 2013 was filed challenging Section 4 and Section 6 notifications dated 6/08/2009 and 4/3/2010 respectively on the ground that as the stand of the Competent Authority then was that there was no Award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act, the proceedings had lapsed. Hence they had prayed that the Oil And Natural Gas Corporation be directed to return the possession of the lands forthwith. 4. On 30/04/2013, a Division Bench of this Court after an extensive hearing passed the following order. “4. Be that as it may, the fact remains that as on today, the proceedings under the Act have lapsed. Consequently, there could be no authority on the part of respondent No.3 to continue to occupy the property of the citizen. It is hardly required to be stated that as per the provisions of Article 300A of the Constitution, no citizen can be deprived of the property without due process of law. As on today, there is no authority in law shown to this Court by the learned Counsel appearing for respondents, which may support the authority of respondent No.3 to continue to occupy the property of the petitioners. 5. As on today, there is no authority in law shown to this Court by the learned Counsel appearing for respondents, which may support the authority of respondent No.3 to continue to occupy the property of the petitioners. 5. It was submitted by Mr.Meena, learned Counsel for respondent No.3 that the well over the land is already dug and there are pipes inside the oil-well having value of crores of rupees and, therefore, even if this Court is inclined to issue prohibitory direction, some reasonable time may be given to respondent No.3 to vacate the same or in alternative, till lawful authority is conferred upon ONGC to continue to occupy the land. As on today, there is no authority and respondent No.3 is also not in a position to show any authority under the law, permitting occupation of the property in question. However, keeping in view the aspect that the oil well exists as stated by respondent No.3 and there may be material lying inside the oil-well, a reasonable time may be required to be given, but with the observations that for the unauthorized occupation by respondent No.3 after the expiry of the period of temporary acquisition till today, they may be required to pay compensation, may be rental or otherwise at a later stage. The total area under acquisition is admeasuring 14616 sq. mtrs., located at Koteshwar Taluka, Gandhinagar and taking into consideration, lease rent as mentioned in the documents at Annexure-B at Rs.1,85,000/- per year, the approximate amount of compensation deserves to be deposited by ONGC in the event the ONGC is desirous to continue to occupy the land for some time, so as to stop its activities or otherwise to get the lawful authority for such purpose. 6. Hence, Rule. 7. By ad-interim order, it is directed that within a period of one month from today, ONGC shall remove all its belongings over the land in question and shall discontinue to utilize the land after the expiry of the period of one month with the further directions that the amount of Rs.50,000/- shall be deposited by way of compensation of the petitioners with this Court. It is also observed that it would be lawful on the part of the petitioners to prohibit the officers or agents or servants of ONGC from entering the land in question. 8. S. O. to 8.7.2013 for reporting compliance and further orders.” 5. It is also observed that it would be lawful on the part of the petitioners to prohibit the officers or agents or servants of ONGC from entering the land in question. 8. S. O. to 8.7.2013 for reporting compliance and further orders.” 5. Thereafter, the order of 30/04/2013 and subsequent orders were a subject matter of challenge before the Apex Court whereby the Apex Court stayed the operations of this and subsequent orders and therefore the lands continued to be in the possession of the Oil And Natural Gas Corporation as on date. 6. The position post the order of 30/04/2013 was that as in the perception of the competent authorities under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, no Award was made and the proceedings had lapsed, a fresh initiative of acquisition was undertaken. Section 4 notification was issued on 19/06/2013, prompting the petitioners of Special Civil Application No.1865 of 2013 to file a fresh petition challenging the Section 4 notification i.e. Special Civil Application No.12425 of 2013. 7. On The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 having been enacted and it becoming effective from 1.1.2014, admittedly as no Award was declared, an amended prayer was made to treat the acquisition proceedings as having lapsed by operation of Section 24 of the 2013 Act. 8. Special Civil Application No. 5024 of 2015 is by the petitioners of lands neighbouring the lands of petitioners of Special Civil Application No.12425 of 2013 which are sought to be acquired under the same notifications under Section 4 and Section 6 respectively of the 1894 Act. The additional ground raised in this petition i.e. Special Civil Application No. 5024 of 2015 as recorded by the Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 10/12/2015 was that there was non-compliance of the provisions of Section 5A of the Act of 1894. 9. We have heard Shri S.N.Shelat, learned Senior Counsel and Shri Jal Unwala, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.J.V.Vaghela and Ms.Tejal Vashi and Mr. Mitul Shelat, learned Advocate for the Petitioners as well as Mr. Meet Thakkar, learned AGP for the State respondents and Mr.R.R. Marshall, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Rituraj Meena, learned advocate appearing for ONGC. 10. Mr. We have heard Shri S.N.Shelat, learned Senior Counsel and Shri Jal Unwala, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.J.V.Vaghela and Ms.Tejal Vashi and Mr. Mitul Shelat, learned Advocate for the Petitioners as well as Mr. Meet Thakkar, learned AGP for the State respondents and Mr.R.R. Marshall, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Rituraj Meena, learned advocate appearing for ONGC. 10. Mr. S.N.Shelat, learned Senior Counsel would submit that with the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 issued and the gap between the two notifications being more than a year and even otherwise as no Award under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 having been declared, the land acquisition proceedings must be treated to have lapsed and the ONGC must be directed to vacate the lands in question and possession be handed over to the petitioners forthwith. 11. Mr. Jal Unwala, learned Senior Counsel would also press the additional ground as the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.5024 of 2015 submitting that admittedly as recorded in the orders passed in the petition, procedure under Section 5A has not been followed and therefore even otherwise the proceedings are bad. 12. Mr. R.R.Marshall, learned Senior Counsel drawing the Court’s attention to the order dated 23.12.2015 passed in Special Civil Application No.5024 of 2015 submitted that the State had failed to explain in its affidavit the fact as to whether Section 5A procedure was followed. To the query put on this aspect to the learned AGP, Mr. Meet Thakkar would submit that though nothing clearly emerges from the Affidavit filed by the Deputy Collector and Special Land Acquisition Officer, pursuant to the order dated 23.12.2015, relevant instructions on compliance can be called for. 13. Having heard the respective Counsels for the parties and the learned AGP, we are of the considered view that the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 need to be set aside only on the short ground of an admitted position that emerges from the Affidavit-In-Reply filed by the State and the ONGC. 14. From the replies so filed, it is an admitted position that Section 4 notification was issued on 19/06/2013. Section 6 notification was issued on 10/10/2014. Hence the period of time from the issuance of Section 4 notification to Section 6 notification was more than a year. 14. From the replies so filed, it is an admitted position that Section 4 notification was issued on 19/06/2013. Section 6 notification was issued on 10/10/2014. Hence the period of time from the issuance of Section 4 notification to Section 6 notification was more than a year. In this context, it will be relevant to peruse Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which reads as under: “6 Declaration that land is required for a public purpose. (1) Subject to the provisions of Part VII of this Act, [when the] [appropriate Government] is satisfied after considering the report, if any, made under section 5A, sub-section (2), that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, or for a Company, a declaration shall be made to that effect under the signature of a Secretary to such Government or of some officer duly authorised to certify its orders[, and different declarations may be made from time to time in respect of different parcels of any land covered by the same notification under section 4, sub-section (1), irrespective of whether one report or different reports has or have been made (wherever required) under section 5A, sub-section (2)] [Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification under section 4, sub-section (1), (i) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967 (1 of 1967) but before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 68 of 1984) shall be made after the expiry of three years from the date of the publication of the notification; or (ii) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the notification:] [Provided further that] no such declaration shall be made unless the compensation to be awarded for such property is to be paid by a Company, or wholly or partly out of public revenues or some fund controlled or managed by a local authority. [Explanation 1..In computing any of the periods referred to in the first proviso, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the notification issued under section 4, sub-section (1), is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded. Explanation 2. [Explanation 1..In computing any of the periods referred to in the first proviso, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the notification issued under section 4, sub-section (1), is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded. Explanation 2. Where the compensation to be awarded for such property is to be paid out of the funds of a corporation owned or controlled by the State, such compensation shall be deemed to be compensation paid out of public revenues] [Every declaration] shall be published in the Official Gazette, [and in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality in which the land is situate of which at least one shall be in the regional language, and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such declaration to be given at convenient places in the said locality (the last of the date of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of publication of the declaration), and such declaration shall state] the district or other territorial division in which the land is situate, the purpose for which it is needed, its approximate area, and where a plan shall have been made of the land, the place where such plan may be inspected. (3) The said declaration shall be conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public purpose or for a Company, as the case may be; and, after making such declaration the [appropriate Government] may acquire the land in a manner hereinafter appearing.” 15. Thus, reading Section 6 makes it very clear that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification under section 4, sub-section (1), published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the notification. Admittedly even as per the replies of competent authority and that of the ONGC, the declaration under Section 6 has been issued after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of notification under Section 4. The declaration under Section 6 is dated 10.10.2014 whereas the Section 4 publication is 19.6.2013 and therefore the declaration is beyond one year of the notification. The declaration under Section 6 is dated 10.10.2014 whereas the Section 4 publication is 19.6.2013 and therefore the declaration is beyond one year of the notification. There is nothing pointed out even in the affidavits filed by the respondent acquiring authority and the Corporation to suggest that there was any impediment in issuing the notification under Section 6 of the Act nor there is any explanation for the delay of the notification being issued beyond the period of one year. On this short ground alone the proceedings under the 1894 Act are held as bad and therefore deserve to be quashed and set aside. 16. In view of the fact that we have held that the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 itself being bad in law and non-est in view of the breach of Section 6 declaration being beyond time, the Oil And Natural Gas Corporation is directed to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the lands in question to the Petitioners. We further direct the respondent Oil and Natural Gas Corporation to vacate the land and remove any material lying on such land within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this Order. 17. As far as Special Civil Application No.1865 of 2013 and Special Civil Application No. 12425 of 2013 are concerned, we are informed by the learned counsels for the respective parties that an amount towards approximate compensation of Rs.8,34,20,000/- has been deposited before the Registry with direction to invest the same and that the interest that may accrue on the deposit shall be paid to the owners of the land as per their inter-se share. Accordingly, the principal amount of Rs. 8,34,20,000/- deposited by the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation in the Registry of this Court may be refunded to the Corporation on its vacating the lands in question after paying the interest that may have accrued in the favour of the petitioners on the principal amount, till the date of this order i.e.19/08/2021, if such interest accrued has not been paid to the Petitioners of Special Civil Application Nos.8465/2013 and 12425 of 2013. 18. We hereby clarify that the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation shall vacate the lands in question within the time frame set out herein above i.e. within four months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 18. We hereby clarify that the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation shall vacate the lands in question within the time frame set out herein above i.e. within four months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. However, in any event, the Corporation is not in a position to adhere to the time limit of four months as directed, further period of maximun two months is granted for the Corporation to vacate the land together with the material lying thereon. In the event the Corporation vacates the land after a period of four months as stipulated above, the petitioners shall be entitled to interest on Rs.8,34,20,000/- on the extended time period that the Corporation takes to vacate the lands in question. 19. The Corporation shall file a certificate of compliance before the Registry of this Court confirming the fact of vacating of the land and/or payment of interest in the event of it vacating the land after the extended time of two months and the amount shall be refunded only after filing of such certificate of compliance as above after due service to the respective counsels appearing for the parties. Rule made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.