Judgment :- 1. In a dispute between a landlord and his tenants in respect of apportionment of the compensation amount awarded under the Land Acquisition Act in regard to a land the lower Court decided it applying the provisions of S.112 of the Land Reforms Act,1 of 1964. The complaint of the landlord in this appeal is that that section is not applicable because the acquisition was made prior to the commencement of Act I of 1964. 2. The publication in this case of the notification under S.3(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was prior to the commencement of the Land Reforms Act, but the land was taken possession of long after the passing of that Act. According to the landlord the date of acquisition of the land is the date on which the notification under S.3(1) of the Act is published. 3. Publication of the notification under S.3(1), declaration under S.6 and passing of the award under S.11, which is only an offer made to the person interested in the land, as held in Grant v. State of Bihar (AIR. 1966 SC 237), are all only stages leading to the acquisition of the land. S.18 specifically provides that the land shall vest in the Government only on taking possession of it by the Collector. Acquisition is complete only by taking possession of the property under S.18 of the Act. S.52 of the Act provides that Government shall beat liberty to withdraw from the acquisition of land. But that is only in cases where the land has not been taken possession of. Where the land has not been taken possession of there is no such power of withdrawal. That is because there is no such power of withdrawal after the completion of acquisition. In none of the decisions cited by counsel appearing for the landlord, namely Varkey Thomas v. Annamma Abraham, (1969 KLT.903) Palghat Valia Raja v. T. S. Veeraraghava Iyer (1961 KLT.103) and Ouseph Joseph v. Ayamkudi Devaswom (1965 (II) KLR.4) is there anything to show that the date of acquisition is the date of the publication of the notification under S.3(1) of the Act. There is no doubt that the date of acquisition is the data of taking possession of the property under S.18 of the Act. 4. There is no doubt that the date of acquisition is the data of taking possession of the property under S.18 of the Act. 4. In the present case the land was taken possession of under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act only after the passing of the Land Reforms Act. In Varkey Thomas v. Annamma Abraham (1969 KLT. 903) even in a case of acquisition of land prior to the date of commencement of Act I of 1964, the principle in S.112 of the Land Reforms Act was applied by this Court in apportioning the compensation amount. The lower court was right in applying S.112 of the Land Reforms Act in apportioning the compensation amount fixed for the land. There is no merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed with costs.