ORDER : This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief : “….to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records in proceedings RoC.No.A/79/2009 and Award No.1(SEZ)/2011-2012, dated 28.09.2011 on the file of the 4th respondent and declare it as being in violation of Land Acquisition Act, 1984, Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and principles of natural justice and consequently quash the same…..” 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that, it is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring an extent of Ac.53.93 cents of agricultural land in Survey Nos.4 to 14 of Madanapalem village, Satyavedu Mandal, Chittoor District. When some third parties tried to interfere with the possession of the petitioner and incidentally the Government also claimed right over the said lands, shown as ‘A’ schedule, and another extent of 844 acres in Survey No.1 of Madanapalem village, the petitioner filed O.S.No.22 of 1998 on the file of the Court of the V Additional District Judge, Tirupathi, Chittoor District seeking relief of declaration and consequential permanent injunction. The said suit was decreed partly declaring the title of the petitioner over the subject lands and to an extent of 193 acres out of 844 acres. The petitioner preferred A.S.No.553 of 2007 against the above decree so far it went against it. In the said A.S., this Court granted injunction by way of an interim order initially for a period of 8 weeks on 30.10.2007 and the same was extended until further orders by an order dated 18.04.2008 and the said injunction is still subsisting. Whereas, the defendants 21 and 22 in the suit, namely, the District Collector and Tahsildar, representing the Government, have preferred A.S.No.211 of 2009 in so far as it went against the Government regarding Survey No.1 i.e., B schedule property. The said appeal is pending adjudication. The defendants 1 to 20 in the suit have not preferred any appeal. In view of the above, it is clear that the petitioner is absolute owner of A schedule property of O.S.No.22 of 1998 i.e. the subject matter of this writ petition. The said appeal is pending adjudication. The defendants 1 to 20 in the suit have not preferred any appeal. In view of the above, it is clear that the petitioner is absolute owner of A schedule property of O.S.No.22 of 1998 i.e. the subject matter of this writ petition. It is the further case of the petitioner that, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued a notification dated 21.03.2006 for the lands of the petitioner in the above A schedule under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act for establishing an industrial park by creating a Special Economic Zone (SEZ). Thereafter, Section 6 declaration was issued on 18.04.2007 in the Gazette and the same was published in the local newspapers on 25.04.2007. The gist of the same was also published in the locality on 24.05.2007. In Section 4(1) notification the name of the petitioner was not reflected. Despite representations to the contrary, the Section 6 declaration published by the Government also did not reveal the petitioner’s name. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed writ Petition No.5476 of 2009, wherein this Court was pleased to pass an interim order on 18.03.2009 directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner. Thereafter, the said writ petition was disposed of vide orders dated 24.06.2011 permitting the petitioner to participate in the award enquiry and directing the Special Deputy Collector, LA(SEZ) to consider the petitioner’s claims. Pursuantly, the petitioner made representations to the appropriate authority and considering the same, the authorities issued notices under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Act on 19.08.2011. Accordingly, the petitioner participated in the award enquiry held on 08.09.2011. The 4th respondent, after hearing objections of the petitioner and some other third parties, passed award in favour of the petitioner under Section 11(1) on 28.09.2011 to an extent of Ac.53.93 cents. However, the copy of the award was not furnished to the petitioner despite repeated representations asking for the same. Thus, the petitioner never got an opportunity to challenge and protest the amount of compensation determined by the 4th respondent. It is the further case of the petitioner that, till date no compensation has been paid, inspite of repeated representations made to the Revenue Divisional Officer/Land Acquisition Officer. The petitioner also filed a petition before the Joint Collector, Chittoor on 07.04.2012 praying for release of the compensation at the earliest. It is the further case of the petitioner that, till date no compensation has been paid, inspite of repeated representations made to the Revenue Divisional Officer/Land Acquisition Officer. The petitioner also filed a petition before the Joint Collector, Chittoor on 07.04.2012 praying for release of the compensation at the earliest. As no action was taken, the petitioner sent legal notice dated 15.10.2012 to respondent Nos.2 to 4, filed a petition on 11.02.2013 to the second respondent and also sent another representation dated 11.09.2014 highlighting the inordinate delay in acting upon the award passed by the authorities, non payment of compensation and the fact that the physical possession of the property still remained with the petitioner and requested that he is entitled to fresh enquiry regarding enhanced compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. As a final effort, the petitioner sent a legal notice dated 10.10.2014 requesting the 4th respondent to conduct a fresh enquiry regarding compensation and pay the enhanced compensation under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, since the petitioner is entitled for enhanced compensation, as no compensation was paid till date. There was no response even to the legal notice. It is the further case of the petitioner that, on perusal of the copy of the Award No. 1(SEZ)/2011-2012, dated 28.09.2011, it is very clear that the process of acquisition as stipulated by the Land Acquisition proceedings has lapsed before the award was passed. The 4(1) notification was published in the locality on 24.04.2006 after being published earlier in Gazette and news papers on 21.03.2006 and 28.03.2006 respectively. Following such publication declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in A.P.State Gazette on 18.04.2007, in newspapers on 25.04.2007 and published locally on 24.05.2007. Therefore, as stipulated under Section 11(A) of the Act, the award was to be passed within two years from the last date of publication of the declaration under Section 6 i.e. by 23.05.2009. Following such publication declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in A.P.State Gazette on 18.04.2007, in newspapers on 25.04.2007 and published locally on 24.05.2007. Therefore, as stipulated under Section 11(A) of the Act, the award was to be passed within two years from the last date of publication of the declaration under Section 6 i.e. by 23.05.2009. However, in the writ petition No.5476 of 2009 filed by the petitioner, this Court granted stay of dispossession of the petitioner and the said writ petition was disposed of on 24.06.2011 and therefore, the authorities had to pass the award on or before 30.08.2011, whereas the copy of the award shows that it was passed on 28.09.2011 i.e. to say 28 days after the land acquisition proceedings under the L.A.Act for acquisition of the land has lapsed as per Section 11(A) of the Act. Thus, the award passed was illegal and there was no notification in existence following which an award could have been passed and therefore, the award dated 28.09.2011 is illegal and void abinitio. It is the further case of the petitioner that, on 29.01.2015, the authorities tried to enter into the land and take possession of the same, but the petitioner resisted their attempt and informed them that no compensation has been paid and that the award itself is illegal and that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed. In view of the above circumstances, as there is no effective alternative remedy available, the petitioner was constrained to file this writ petition. 3. The 4th respondent filed counter affidavit denying the averments of the writ petition, inter alia contending that, 4(1) notification was published in Gazette dated 21.03.2006 and section 6 declaration was also published in A.P. Gazette No.139/2007, dated 18.04.2007. Thereafter, individual notices under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act were also served on notified persons. At that stage, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.5476 of 2009 and this Court vide orders dated 18.03.2009 directed the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner, if not already dispossessed. The said writ petition was disposed of on 24.06.2011 with a direction to consider the petitioner’s claim. The orders of the High Court were received on 05.08.2011. The award enquiry was conducted on 08.09.2011 and the petitioner along with other ryots attended the enquiry. Thereafter, Award was passed on 28.09.2011. The said writ petition was disposed of on 24.06.2011 with a direction to consider the petitioner’s claim. The orders of the High Court were received on 05.08.2011. The award enquiry was conducted on 08.09.2011 and the petitioner along with other ryots attended the enquiry. Thereafter, Award was passed on 28.09.2011. At the time of award enquiry, as the Tahsildar, Satyavedu, did not inform regarding pendency of appeal suit filed against the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.22 of 1998, award was passed in favour of the writ petitioner. Thereafter, the Tahsildar, Satyavedu, submitted a detailed report to the District Collector through the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati, stating that the Tahsildar has preferred an appeal in A.S.No.211 of 2009 before the High Court against the judgment dated 05.06.2007 in O.S.No.22 of 1998 and the said appeal is pending. Thereafter, as per the instructions, the Tahsildar filed stay petition before High Court in A.S.No.211 of 2009 and the same is pending. Thereafter, compensation amount was not distributed to the awardees and the same was kept in Revenue Deposit by the District Collector, Chittoor and hence the acquired lands have not been handed over to the requisitioning agency i.e. Zonal Manager, APIIC, Tirupathi. The award was passed within the time prescribed Under Section 11(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, from the date of receipt of copy of the High Court’s order. There are no merits in the writ petition and the same deserves dismissal. Accordingly prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Heard Sri Ch.Siddhartha Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. 5. Both the learned counsel addressed arguments reiterating the stand taken by them in their respective pleadings. Apart from the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decisions in Mulchand Khanumal Khatri v.State of Gujarat and others, (2012) 5 Supreme Court Cases 365 , R. Indira Saratchandra vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, (2011) 10 Supreme Court Cases 344, Padma Sundara Rao (Dead) and others vs. State of T.N. and others, (2002) 3 Supreme Court Cases 533 and Singareni Collieries Company Limited v. Vemuganti Ramakrishna Rao and others, (2013) 8 Supreme Court Cases 789 . 6. 6. The short point involved in this writ petition is whether the period taken to obtain the copy of the order by which the High Court vacated the stay earlier granted by it ought also to be excluded from consideration or not. 7. Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act which is appropriate and relevant for the present purpose is extracted hereunder: “11-A. 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 pursuant of the said declaration is stayed by an order of a court shall be excluded.” 8. It is evident from the above that in order to be valid, the award must be made within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. However, the award could be held to be valid if the same was within two years of the declaration after excluding the period during which the High Court had stayed the proceedings in the writ petition filed by the petitioner. 9. The Section 6 declaration in the instant case was published locally on 24.05.2007. The award was passed on 28.09.2011. In the case at hand the interim order of stay was issued by the High Court on 18.03.2009 which order was finally vacated on 24.06.2011. This means that the restraint order was in force for a period of 2 years three months and six days. The Explanation to Section 11-A permits exclusion of the period during which the court had stayed the acquisition proceedings for the purpose of reckoning the period of two years prescribed for making the award. This means that the restraint order was in force for a period of 2 years three months and six days. The Explanation to Section 11-A permits exclusion of the period during which the court had stayed the acquisition proceedings for the purpose of reckoning the period of two years prescribed for making the award. That period shall have to be added to the period of two years prescribed for making the award in the light of the Explanation to Section 11-A. By such addition, the award has to be passed before 30.08.2011. Whereas, the award in the present case was passed on 28.09.2011. Thus, even if the period of operation of the restrain order is added to the time allowed for making an award, the award stands beyond the period prescribed. 10. The learned counsel for the respondents strenuously contended that though the operation of stay came to end on 24.06.2011, they could only receive the copy of the said orders on 05.08.2011. Thus, the entire period not only covered by the period during which the restraint order was in force but also the period consumed for obtaining copies of the orders has also to be excluded. If that was done, the award would be well within the period stipulated under Section 11(A) of the Act. 11. In Mulchand Khanumal Khatri (supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with similar facts held as thus: “5. From the above discussion, it is apparent that the High Court was of the view that unless and until certified copy of the judgment and order passed by the Court was brought to the notice of the authority, the authority was not supposed to act and the period of two years under Section 11-A of the Act would start only from the date of such notice and as the copy of the judgment and order passed by the High Court on 11.01.1996 was received by the competent authority on 05.09.1997, the respondents were entitled to the benefit of the entire period from 11.01.1996 to 05.09.1997 6. We are unable to accept the view of the High Court.” 12. In the said judgment, reference was made to the decision in Ravi khullar v. Union of India (2007) 5 SCC 231 in which similar question came up for consideration. We are unable to accept the view of the High Court.” 12. In the said judgment, reference was made to the decision in Ravi khullar v. Union of India (2007) 5 SCC 231 in which similar question came up for consideration. Para 56 of the same reads as follows : “56. It will thus be seen that the legislature wherever it considered necessary incorporated by express words the rule incorporated in Section 12 of the Limitaion Act. It has done so expressly in Section 28-A of the Act while it has consciously not incorporated this rule in Section 11-A even while providing for exclusion of time under the Explanation. The intendment of the legislature is therefore unambiguous and does not permit the court to read words into Section 11-A of the Act so as to enable it to read Section 12 of the Limitation Act into Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act.” 13. By referring the said pronouncement, their Lordships further held as thus: “11. We are in respectful agreement with the above legal position. The period prescribed in Section 11-A is mandatory. The consequence of breach is provided in the provision itself viz. the entire acquisition proceedings get lapsed. Insofar as computation of the period is concerned, the period of two years commences from the date of the publication of the declaration. Where the declaration has been published before the Amendment Act, then the period commences from the commencement of the Amendment Act. The only period that is excludable is the period during which the action or proceedings to be taken pursuant to the said declaration remains stayed under the order of a court and no other. Section 11-A is a special provision for the purposes of the Act and the legislative intent being clear from the bare language of the Explanation appended thereto, we find no justification to read the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 and particularly Section 12 thereof into it. 12. In view of the above legal position and the facts noticed above, we hold as we must, that the award having not been made within the period prescribed in Section 11-A of the Act, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the appellant’s land has lapsed. The High Court was clearly in error in excluding the period from 11.01.1996 to 05.09.1997. The High Court was clearly in error in excluding the period from 11.01.1996 to 05.09.1997. This period cannot be excluded under the Explanation appended to Section 11A of the Act.” 14. From the above, indubitably, the time taken for getting certified copy of the orders whereby stay granted earlier was excluded is not a qualified excludable period in view of the clear and unambiguous language employed in Section 11-A of the Act. 15. In R. Indira Saratchandra (supra ) relied on by the petitioner, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as thus: “9. A reading of the plain language of the above reproduced section makes it clear that the Collector is obliged to make an award under Section 11 within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration. If no award is made within that period, the acquisition proceedings automatically lapses. By virtue of the Explanation, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken pursuant to the declaration is stayed by an order of a court is to be excluded in computing the period of two years. This means that if any action or proceedings required to be taken after the issue of declaration under Section 6 is stayed by a Court, the entire period of stay will get excluded in calculating the period of two years within which an award is required to be made by the Collector. As a corollary to this, it must be held that once the stay order passed by a court is vacated or ceases to operate, the clog put on the running of the period specified in the main section is removed. 10. There is nothing in Section 11-A from which it can be inferred that the stay order passed by the court remains operative till the delivery of copy of the order…...” 16. The other decision relied on by the petitioner in Singareni Collieries Company Limited (supra), while referring R. Indira Saratchandra and Ravi khullar v. Union of India held thus: “17. We are in respectful agreement with the above line of reasoning in Ravi Khullar case. Section 11-A in terms does not provide for exclusion of the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the judgment or order by which the stay order was either granted or vacated. We are in respectful agreement with the above line of reasoning in Ravi Khullar case. Section 11-A in terms does not provide for exclusion of the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the judgment or order by which the stay order was either granted or vacated. Section 12 of the Limitation Act has no application to the making of an award under the Land Acquisition Act. In the absence of any enabling provision either in Section 211-A of the Land Acquisition Act or in the Limitation Act, there is no room for borrowing the principles underlying Section 12 of the Limitation Act for computing the period or determining the validity of an award by reference to Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act.” 17. In view of the observations made in the above pronouncements, it is evident that the award made by the Land Acquisition Officer was non est and the acquisition proceedings had lapsed by reason of a breach of Section 11-A of the Act qua the writ petitioner. 18. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed and the entire proceedings for the acquisition concerning the petitioner’s land is declared to have been lapsed. There shall be no order as to costs. As sequel thereto, miscellaneous petition, if any, pending shall stand closed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated.