Ajay Rastogi JUDGMENT
M.R. Shah, J.
1. Delay condoned in Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No. 3189/2019. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.
2. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of appeals, they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgments and orders dated 24.03.2017 and 27.04.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition Nos. 7867/2012, 10894/2016 and 9088/2016, by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petitions and has quashed the entire acquisition proceedings with respect to the acquired lands solely on the ground that the acquisition has lapsed as the awards Under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') were not declared within a period of two years from the date of declaration made Under Section 6 of the Act, the State of Maharashtra and others have preferred the present appeals.
3.1. For the sake of convenience, the facts in the appeal arising out of special leave petition No. 23921/2018 arising out of the impugned judgment and order dated 24.03.2017 passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 7867/2012 are considered as the facts in other two appeals are identical.
4. That the acquired land in question is situated within the local limits of village Asarjan, Taluka and District Nanded. That the notification Under Section 4 of the Act was issued and published in the Official Gazette on 01.03.2012. The same was published at Village Chawdi Asarjan by beating of drums on 12.04.2012. That thereafter notification Under Section 6 of the Act was published on 07.02.2013 and the notification Under Section 6 of the Act was published at Village Chawdi Asarjan by beating of drums on 13.02.2013.
4.1. That the original land owners challenged the acquisition and the notification Under Section 4 of the Act dated 01.03.2012 by filing Writ Petition No. 7867 of 2012 on 09.05.2012. That vide order dated 11.10.2013, the High Court directed that the possession of the original writ Petitioners shall not be disturbed. The other land owners, whose lands were acquired for the very project and under the very Section 4 notification dated 01.03.2012, also challenged the acquisition proceedings and Section 4 notification with respect to their lands by filing Writ Petition Nos. 3051/2013 and 3159/2013. In those writ petitions also the High Court granted stay to the acquisition proceedings vide order dated 12.11.2013. It appears that by order dated 20.11.2013, the High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 3........