NATHU RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned counsel has raised four points in this case. Firstly. he claimed that notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the Act') and the declaration under section 6 are liable to be set aside on certain grounds. However, we, find that the petitioners filed an earlier writ petition C. W. P. No. 3366 of 1985 questioning the same notification and the declaration but they did not press and the same was dismissed. Therefore, that question cannot be re-agitated in this petition. The second point raised by the learned counsel was that under section 11-A of the Act, the award should have been made Within a period of two years from the date of declaration. In this case, the declaration was made on 10th August 1984 and the award was announced on 2nd April, 1987 and., therefore, it was barred by limitation. We are unable to agree with this contention also because under the proviso to section 11-A, which reads as under, in computing the period of two years, the period during which any action or proceedings to be taken in pursuance of the said declaration is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded :

(2.) No other point was raised.

(3.) The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.