JUDGMENT : SANJEEV KUMAR, J. 1. This intra-Court Appeal filed by the appellant [‘the writ petitioner’] under clause 12 of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment 08.11.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court [‘the Writ Court’] in OWP No. 697/2012 titled Satpal Gupta vs. State and Others. 2. Before we advert to the grounds of challenge urged by learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, appellant herein, we deem it appropriate to give brief resume of the factual antecedents leading to filing of this appeal. 3. Land measuring 125 kanals, 13 marlas situate in village Narwal Bala, Tehsil and District Jammu was acquired by the respondents for public purpose, namely construction of 2nd Grid Station. A requisition was made by the Chief Executive Officer, JDA vide his Communication No. JDA/DDM/Mic.82/141.42 dated 04.05.1977. The Collector Land Acquisition (PWD) Jammu issued a notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act Svt.1990 [‘the Act’] on 24.05.1977 which was published in the Government Gazette on 09.06.1977. Since no objections to the acquisition of the land under Section 5-A of the Act were received from the interested persons, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued by the Government vide No. RD/130 of 1977 which was communicated to the Collector Land Acquisition (PWD) Jammu by the Revenue Department vide its communication dated 23.08.1977. The Collector Land Acquisition was also directed by the Government to take orders of the acquisition under Section 7 of the Act and also to proceed under Section 17 of the Act after expiry of period of notice issued under Section 9 of the Act. 4. It seems that the Collector Land Acquisition (PWD), Jammu assessed the tentative compensation and paid/deposited 75% of the tentatively assessed compensation and simultaneously took over the possession in exercise of powers under Section 17 of the Act. 5. It may be pertinent to mention here that the land, which was sought to be acquired by the respondents included the land measuring 5 kanal, 6 marla falling in khasra No. 286/12 min and 1 kanal, 09 marla falling in khasra No. 287/12 min belonging to the writ petitioner. 6. The writ petitioner approached the Writ Court by way of OWP No. 413/1983 and sought quashment of the acquisition proceedings set in motion by the Collector Land Acquisition (PWD) Jammu. 6. The writ petitioner approached the Writ Court by way of OWP No. 413/1983 and sought quashment of the acquisition proceedings set in motion by the Collector Land Acquisition (PWD) Jammu. The writ petition was disposed by the Writ Court vide its judgment dated 21.10.1992. The operative portion of the judgment reads as under: “It is, revealed from the record that in exercise of the powers under Section 17 of the Act, the respondents have already taken possession of the land. Section 17 provides that in case of urgency, whenever the Government so directs, the Collector, though no such award has been made, may, on the expiration of 15 days, from the publication of the notice mentioned in Section 9(1) take possession of the land needed for public purpose which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government free from all encumberances. I am not inclined to disturb the possession of the land which has been validly taken in accordance with the provisions of law as incorporated in Section 17 of the Act. Under the circumstances, this petition is disposed of with the direction that the acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have been quashed to the extent as indicated hereinabove and the respondents shall issue fresh notices to the petitioners for the purposes of validly acquiring the land. After the issuance of the notices, the compensation shall be determined on the basis of the objections filed and the provisions of law applicable in the case. The petitioner shall not, however, disturb the possession to the respondents. The acquisition proceedings shall be initiated within a period of one month and concluded as early as possible.” 7. It is, thus, evident that vide judgment dated 21.10.1992, the entire acquisition proceedings qua the writ petitioner were quashed. However, the possession of the subject land taken over by the respondents in exercise of powers under Section 17 of the Act was protected and a direction was issued to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings for acquisition of the land belonging to the petitioner within a period of one month and conclude the same as early as possible. However, the possession of the subject land taken over by the respondents in exercise of powers under Section 17 of the Act was protected and a direction was issued to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings for acquisition of the land belonging to the petitioner within a period of one month and conclude the same as early as possible. In compliance with the judgment dated 21.10.1992, the Collector Land Acquisition (PWD), Jammu, in the year 1992, on the basis of fresh indent submitted by the Executive Engineer, Grid Construction Division, Jammu issued a notification under Section 4 of the Act vide No. LA/631-36 dated 26.02.1993 for acquisition of the land belonging to the writ petitioner. Further a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued by the Revenue Department, Government of J&K, under Notification No. 73-RD of 1994 by virtue of which it was declared that the land belonging to the writ petitioner was needed for public purpose. This was followed by a Notification issued under Section 9 of the Act by the Collector Land Acquisition on 21.05.1994. The proceedings, as is apparent from the stand of the respondents, did not proceed beyond this stage and remained pending for undisclosed reasons. 8. The writ petitioner waited for long and ultimately when the acquisition proceedings were not completed and the requisite award was not passed in his favour, he approached the Writ Court again by way of OWP No. 697/2012. The writ petitioner, inter alia, claimed a direction to the respondents to restore the possession of his land after removing the material as well as the portion of structure and construction raised thereon. The writ petitioner also prayed for compensation for use and occupation of his land taken possession of by the respondents without adopting due process of law. A specific prayer was made by the writ petitioner for quashing the entire acquisition proceedings in view of provisions of Section 11-B of the Act. The writ petition was contested by the respondents, who, in their objections, did not dispute the fact that the acquisition proceedings initiated by them by issuance of a notification under Section 4 of the Act on 26.02.1993 have not been taken to logical end. However, pursuant to the directions issued by the Writ Court dated 31.12.2013 passed in the aforesaid writ petition, the compensation amount to the tune of Rs. However, pursuant to the directions issued by the Writ Court dated 31.12.2013 passed in the aforesaid writ petition, the compensation amount to the tune of Rs. 11.60 lacs was deposited by the Executive Engineer, Grid Construction Division, Jammu with the Registrar of this Court. It is also important to note that during pendency of OWP No. 697/2012, the writ petitioner filed two other writ petitions i.e. OWP No. 15/2015 seeking quashment of notification dated 22.12.2012 and OWP No. 353/2015 seeking a direction for registration of FIR against the respondents. All these writ petitions were clubbed together and disposed of by the Writ Court vide its judgment dated 08.11.2016 which is impugned in this appeal. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment passed by the Writ Court is not sustainable in law and, therefore, deserves to be set aside. 10. Indisputably, after quashment of earlier acquisition process of 1997, fresh process of acquisition was initiated by the Collector Land Acquisition (PWD), Jammu by issuing a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 26.02.1993. This was followed by a declaration by the Revenue Department under Section 6 of the Act vide communication dated 29.04.1994. However, these proceedings were not taken to logical end. In the meanwhile, the Act came to be amended by the Act No. IV of 1997 and Section 11-B came to be incorporated in the Act. Before we proceed, we deem it appropriate to set out Section 11-B of the Act. 11-B. Period within which an award shall be made: “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 land shall lapse: Provided that in case where the said declaration has been published before the commencement of the State Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1997, the award shall be made within a period of two years from such commencement.” 11. From a reading of Section 11-B of the Act, it clearly transpires that the Collector Land Acquisition, PWD, Jammu was put under an obligation to make an award under Section 11 of the Act within a period of two years from the date of publication of a declaration. From a reading of Section 11-B of the Act, it clearly transpires that the Collector Land Acquisition, PWD, Jammu was put under an obligation to make an award under Section 11 of the Act within a period of two years from the date of publication of a declaration. The said Section also provided for consequences for not completing the acquisition proceedings and making the award within the stipulated period i.e. the lapse of the entire acquisition proceedings. The proviso appended to Section 11-B of the Act covered the case on hand, in that, it clearly provided that where a declaration under Section 6 has been published before the commencement of the amendment, the award shall be made within a period of two years from the commencement of the amended Act. Viewed thus, the Collector Land Acquisition, in the instant case, should have made the award within a period of two years from the date of commencement of the State Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1997 and in any case, by the end of year 1999. The Collector Land Acquisition has failed to complete the acquisition proceedings and make his award even in the year 2016 when the writ petitions were taken up for consideration by the Writ Court. This aspect of the matter has not been taken note of by the Writ Court. The proceedings by operation of proviso to section 11-B of the Act stood terminated and, thus, were required to be quashed by the Writ Court as prayed for by the writ petitioner. The Court though allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to conclude the acquisition proceedings, but did not specifically quash the proceedings which, by efflux of time, had elapsed in terms of proviso to Section 11-B of the Act. 12. It seems that due to pendency of this appeal even the judgment passed by the Writ Court could not be complied with by the respondents. Be that as it may, the position as on date is that the acquisition proceedings initiated by the Collector Land Acquisition, in terms of Notification dated 26.02.1993 issued under Section 4 of the Act stand elapsed w.e.f. the year 1999 and, therefore, there could have been no direction to the Collector to conclude such proceedings 13. In view of the aforesaid, we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment passed by the Writ Court. In view of the aforesaid, we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment passed by the Writ Court. Since the proceedings initiated in the year 1993 by issuing a notification on 26.02.1993 under Section 4 of the Act have lapsed in view of the proviso appended to Section 11-B of the Act, as such, the respondents are now under an obligation to initiate fresh proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [‘the Act of 2013’]. Let the needful be done by the respondents by initiating a fresh process under the Act of 2013 within a period of one month from today and conclude the same within the stipulated period prescribed under the Act of 2013. We, however, maintain the directions of the Writ Court that the writ petitioner shall be at liberty to seek compensation from the appropriate forum for illegal use and occupation of his land from the time it has been taken possession of by the respondents and till the proceedings under the Act of 2013 are initiated. The amount, if any, deposited by the respondents in the Registry of this Court shall be remitted to the Collector Land Acquisition (PWD), Jammu, to be appropriated in the acquisition proceedings, to be initiated in terms of this judgment. 14. Disposed of accordingly.