The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition Nos.27994 & 28960 of 2010 Date: 28-12-2011 Common Order: Since the subject matter of both these Writ Petitions is same, the Writ Petitions are heard and being disposed of together. The petitioner in WP.No.27994 of 2010 claims a share in the property, which was notified for acquisition under Notification, dated 24-10-2008, issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), by pleading that she has filed OS.No.152 of 1996 in the Court of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, for partition of the said property and allotment of half share therein. She further pleaded that the said suit was decreed and aggrieved by the same, respondent No.4 filed AS.No.1350 of 2003 in this Court, which is stated to be pending. The petitioners in WP.No.28960 of 2010 claim to be the cultivating tenants, who filed ATC.No.5 of 1990 in the Court of the learned Principal District Munsif, Srikakulam, for declaration of their tenancy rights and injunction against respondent No.4, which was decreed. ATA No.8 of 1995, filed by respondent No.4, was dismissed by the learned District Judge and appellate authority under the A.P.(AA) Tenancy Rules, 1980 and CRP.No.1893 of 1997, filed by respondent No.4 against the said judgments, is pending in this Court. In the light of the above facts, the petitioners in both these cases claim that they are the persons interested in the property proposed to be acquired and have, accordingly, filed these two Writ Petitions questioning the impugned Land Acquisition proceedings. Even though multiple grounds have been raised questioning the impugned land acquisition proceedings, at the hearing, Sri M.Venkataramana Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that on the admitted facts, the entire land acquisition proceedings have lapsed as the official respondents have failed to pass an award within a period of two years from the date of publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act as mandated by Section 11-A thereof. Even though respondent No.4, who is common in both these Writ Petitions, entered appearance in WP.No.28960 of 2010 and the name of the learned Counsel appearing for him is shown in the cause list, no one appeared on his behalf. At the hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, representing respondent Nos.2 and 3, fairly conceded that the publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act in the locality was made on 29-12-2008 and the two years period has expired on 28-12-2010. A perusal of the record shows that an interim order of status quo was granted for a period of two weeks on 22-11-2010 in WP.No.28960 of 2010 and the said interim order has not been extended. Even if the said period of two weeks is excluded in terms of explanation to Section 11-A of the Act, the period of two years from the date of publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act has expired. In view of this statutory mandate contained in Section 11-A of the Act, the entire proceedings for acquisition of the subject property have lapsed as award has not been passed within the period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration even after excluding the period during which the order of status quo was granted by this Court. In this view of the matter, both the Writ Petitions are allowed with the declaration that the acquisition proceedings impugned in these two Writ Petitions have lapsed. This order, however, does not preclude the official respondents from initiating fresh land acquisition proceedings at their option. As a sequel, WPMP.Nos.35702 and 36901 of 2010, filed by the petitioners for interim relief, are disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 28th December, 2011 LUR