( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4075 of 1998 Mahadu Shivram Khule and ors. .. Respondents Versus The State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents WITH W.P. NO. 4378 OF 1998 W.P. NO. 4388 OF 1998 W.P. NO. 4389 OF 1998 W.P. NO. 4393 OF 1998 W.P. NO. 4472 OF 1998 W.P. NO. 4473 OF 1998 W.P. NO. 4474 OF 1998 W.P. NO. 4475 OF 1998 Shri S.K. Shinde, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri L.V. Sangeet h/f. Shri V.J. Dixit, Advocate for petitioners in W.P. No. 4378 of 1998 Shri D.V. Tele, A.G.P. for respondent/State. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 09.10.2009 P.C. :- . Heard Adv. Shri S.K. Shinde and Shri L.V. Sangeet h/f. Shri V.J. Dixit for respective petitioners and Shri D.V. Tele for respondent/State. A.G.P. Shri D.V. Tele waives ( 2 ) notices for respondent/State. In Writ Petition No. 4378 of 1998, A.G.P. Shri D.V. Tele appears for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 & 7 and respondent No. 6 is duly served and absent. 2. In all these matters the lands of the petitioners were acquired for resettlement of displaced persons of Uppar Pravara (Nilvande) Project. By these petitions, the petitioners are challenging the award passed on 08.03.1996. The challenge is under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, which lays down that the Collector shall make award under Section 11 within a period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration i.e. under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceeding of the acquisition of land shall lapse. 3. Both sides are ready to argue the matter finally at this stage and there is no much dispute regarding the facts. The writ petitions are taken up for hearing. 4. Now it is admitted position that so far as notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act is ( 3 ) concerned, it is issued on 31.10.1992. Publication in the official gazette was made on 03.12.1992. Notification under Section 6 was issued on 03.12.1993 and on 04.12.1993 same was published in the Government gazette, so also it was published at Chawadi of the concerned village. So, it is also not disputed that in all these matters the award is passed on 08.03.1996. So, the award is passed beyond period of two years from 04.12.1993. 5. A.G.P. Shri D.V. Tele specifically admitted that and Adv. Shri S.K. Shinde specifically stated that there was no order of stay passed by any Court during above said period and proceedings of the acquisition were not stayed. Therefore, none of these cases fall under explanation to Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act. Adv. Shri Shinde also relied upon judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5571 of 1997 etc. decided by a common judgment on 18.09.2009 by Division Bench of this Court. Copy of the same is made available. In the said matters, relying upon case of Mahadu Vithoba Gunjal & Ors., V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Ors., and other connected petitions decided on 18.11.2008 and also relying on the case of Mahesh Shivaji Dighe and anr. ( 4 ) V/s. State of Maharashtra and ors., 2004 (4) Mh.L.J.614, it was argued that whenever there is breach of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, there is no alternative but to allow the petition. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the cases, the land acquisition proceedings relating to the acquisition of the land of respective petitioners, therefore, are quashed and set aside and the acquisition is declared to have lapsed. The respondents would be entitled to initiate fresh land acquisition proceedings, if the respondents so desire relating to the land of the petitioners. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/OCT09/wp4075.98