Bhagwati Prasad, J. - (1.) HEARD .
(2.) THE principal challenge in this writ petition by the petitioners is of the nature that since the award was not made within two years of the publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, the entire proceedings stands lapsed under Section 11A of the Act. The respondents have come in reply and have challenged the stand of the petitioners that possession of land was taken over by the respondent department before two years i.e. 08.08.2003 and the declaration under Section 6 read with Section 17(4) of the Act was published on 12.03.2001. Respondents have disputed the claim of the petitioners on the ground that the possession of the land was taken on 26.02.2003. Once the possession is taken, the implication of Section 11A of the Act is ruled out. 'Mauka Fard' was prepared on 26.02.2003 and declaration under Section 6 was issued on 12.03.2001 which is well within two years. Once the possession is taken, Courts are unanimous on the question that Section 11 -A has no application. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that fact of taking possession is a farse because till date, the petitioners are in possession.
(3.) THE argument of the petitioners does not merit consideration in the background that the Courts have been unanimous that it is the symbolic possession which is to be considered to have been taken and format of taking possession specifically is not necessary. In this regard referred can be made to decision of Satendra Prasad Jain and Ors. v. : AIR1993SC2517 wherein, the Hon ble Supreme Court has held as under: In ordinary case, however, when the Government fails to make an award within two years of the declaration under Section 6, the land has still not vested in the Government and its title remains with the owner, the acquisition proceedings are still pending and, by virtue of the provisions of Section 11 -A, lapse. Clearly, Section 11 -A can have no application to the cases of acquisitions under Section 17 because the lands have already vested in the Government and there is no provision in the Act by which land statutorily vested in the Government can revert to the owner.;