MALIMATH, J. ( 1 ) IN both these appeals the challenge is to the award made by the Civil judge, Haveri, in L. A. C. No. 8 of 1973 under S. 48 (2) of the Land Acquisition act. (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). ( 2 ) M. F. A. 923 of 1976 is filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dharwar district and the General Manager, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation. At the request of the learned counsel appearing for appellant-2, in this appeal, appellant-2 is transposed as respondent-2. MFA 275 of 1977 is filed by J. G. Jeevannavar, the claimant. ( 3 ) THE undisputed facts of the case may briefly be stated as follows: the claimant owns a plot of land in Hirekerur measuring about 3 acres and 6 guntas and 114 sq. yards comprised in S. No. 233/1a/1. The land was originally an agricultural land and was converted into a non-agricultural land some time in the year 1962. It appears that the KSRTC needed mfa 923/76 and 275/77. this land for its use, whereupon it approached the State Government for acquiring a portion of the land belonging to the claimant under the provisions of the Act as amended in Karnataka. On 7tb September 1967 3, preliminary notification was issued under S. 4 (1) of the Act, which notification came to be cancelled on 1. 1th April 1969. Another notification was issued under S. 4 (1) of the Act on 15th November 1p69 which came to be cancelled on 7th February 1971. There was one more notification issued under S. 4 (1) of the Act on 23rd September 1970 which came to be cancelled on 30th March 1972. It is thereafter that the claimant claimed that he is entitled to compensation under sub-sec. (2) of S. 48 of the Act consequent upon the withdrawal of the acquisition proceedings for the period between 7th September 1967 the date of the first notification issued under S. 4 (1) of the Act and 30th March 1972 the date of the last notification by which the acquisition proceedings were dropped. The claimant claimed compensation of Rs. 1,15,582|92 P. The Deputy Commissioner made an award in favour of the claimant for Rs. 19,221-20. As the claimant was not satisfied with the said award, a reference was made at his instance to the Court of the Civil Judge, Haveri. The claimant claimed compensation of Rs. 1,15,582|92 P. The Deputy Commissioner made an award in favour of the claimant for Rs. 19,221-20. As the claimant was not satisfied with the said award, a reference was made at his instance to the Court of the Civil Judge, Haveri. The learned Civil Judge has enhanced the compensation by a further sum of Rs. 10,619/73 P. ( 4 ) IT is the enhancement made that is challenged by the Deputy Commissioner, dharwar, in MFA No. 923 of 1976. Not being satisfied with the enhancement made by the learned Civil Judge, the claimant has preferred mfa 275 of 1977 praying that compensation be fixed at the rate of Rs. 900 per gunta. As these two appeals are directed against the same award, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. ( 5 ) IN support of MFA 923 of 1976 Sri C. S. Kothavale, learned High court Government Pleader maintained that S. 48 (2) of the, Act is not at all applicable to the facts of the present case and that consequently the claimant is not entitled to any compensation under that provision. Sri C. S. Kothavale contended that the claimant could claim relief by invoking sub-sec. (2) of S. 48 of the Act only if he has suffered damages in consequence of the notice issued under sub-sec. (1) of S. 9 of the Act or in consequence of any proceedings taken in pursuance of the notice issued under sub-sec (1) of S. 9 of the Act. ( 6 ) TO appreciate the contention of Sri C. S. Kothava,le, it is necessary to exiract the provisions in sub-sees. (1) to (3) of S. 48 of the Act, which read as follows:-"completion of acquisition not compulsory, but compensation to be awarded when not completed.- (1) Except in the case provided for in S. 36, the Government shall be at liberty to withdraw from the acquisition of any land of which possession has not been taken. (1) to (3) of S. 48 of the Act, which read as follows:-"completion of acquisition not compulsory, but compensation to be awarded when not completed.- (1) Except in the case provided for in S. 36, the Government shall be at liberty to withdraw from the acquisition of any land of which possession has not been taken. (2) Whenever the Governemnt withdraws from any such acquisition the Deputy Commissioner shall determine the amount of compensation due for the damage suffered by the owner in consequence of the notice or of any proceedings thereunder and shall pay such amount to the person interested, together with all costs reasonably incurred by him in the prosecution of the proceedings under this Act relating to the said land. (3) The provisions of Part-Ill of this Act shall apply, so far as may be, to the determination of the compensation payable under this section. "before a claimant can call upon the Deputy Commissioner to determine the compensation under sub-sec. (2) of S. 48 of the Act, the following two conditions have to be satisfied; (1) that the, Government has withdrawn from the acquisition, and (2) that the claimant has suffered damages in consequence of the notice or of any proceedings taken thereunder. It is not enough if the claimant asserts that he has suffered damages. It is only if the conse- quence of the notice contemplated bysub-sec. (2) of S. 48 or of any proceedings taken thereunder the claimant has suffered damages that he can claim compensation. Though sub-sec. (2) of S. 48 of the Act refers to the notice, it does not expressly state as to the provision under the Act to which that notice is referable. Sri C. S. Kothavale maintained that the notice contemplated in sub-sec. (2) of S. 48 is the one contemplated by sub-sec. (1) of S. 9 of the Act having regard to the context and the scheme of the act. In support -of this contention, he relied upon the decision of the supreme Court reported in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Vishnu Prasad sharma ( AIR 1966 SC. 1593 ). Sri C. S. Kothavale, in particular, invited our attention to the discussion in the majority judgment of the Supreme Court in this behalf contained in paragraph-19 which reads as follows:"then reliance is placed on S. 48 which provides for withdrawal from acquisition. 1593 ). Sri C. S. Kothavale, in particular, invited our attention to the discussion in the majority judgment of the Supreme Court in this behalf contained in paragraph-19 which reads as follows:"then reliance is placed on S. 48 which provides for withdrawal from acquisition. The argument is that S. 48 is the only provision in the Act which deals with withdrawal from acquisition and that is the only way in which Government can withdraw from the acquisition and unless action is taken under S. 48 (1) the notification under S. 4 (1) would remain (presumably for ever ). It is urged that the only way in which the notification under S. 4 (1) can come to an end is by withdrawal under S. 48 (1 ). We are not impressed by this argument. In the first place under S. 21 of the General Clauses Act (No. 10 of 1897), the power to issue a notification includes the power to rescind it Therefore, it is always open to Government to rescind a notification under S. 4 or under S. 6, and withdrawal under S. 48 (1) is not the only way in which a notification under S. 4 or S. 6 can be brought to an end. S. 48 (1) confers a special power on Government of withdrawal from acquisition without cancelling the notifications under Ss. 4 and 6, provided it has not taken possession of the land covered be the notification under S. 6. In such circumstances the Government has to, give compensation under S. 48 (2 ). This compensation is for the damage suffered by the owner in consequence of the notice under S. 9 or of any proceedings thereafter and includes costs reasonably incurred by him in the prosecution of the proceedings under the Act relating to the said land. The notice mentioned in sub-sec. (2) obviously refers to the notice under S. 9 (1) to persons interested. It seems that S. 48 refers to the stage after the collector has been asked to take order for acquisition under S. 7 and has issued notice under S. 9 (1 ). It does not refer to the stage prior to the issue of the declaration under S. 6. S. 5 says that the officer taking action under S. 4 (2) shall pay oir tender payment for all necessary damage done by his acting under S. 4 (2 ). It does not refer to the stage prior to the issue of the declaration under S. 6. S. 5 says that the officer taking action under S. 4 (2) shall pay oir tender payment for all necessary damage done by his acting under S. 4 (2 ). Therefore, the damage if any caused after the notification under S. 4 (1) is provided in S. 5. S. 48 (2) provides for compensation after notice has been issued under S. 9 (1) and the Collector has taken proceedings for acquisition of the land by virtue, of the direction under S. 7. S. 48 (1) thus gives power to Government to withdraw from the acquisition without cancelling the notifications under Ss. 4 and 6 after notice under s. 9 (1) has been issued and before possession is taken. This power can be exercised even after the Collector has made the award under s. 11 but before he takes possession under S. 15. S. 48 (2) provides for compensation in such a case. The argument that S. 48 (1) is the only method in which the Government can withdraw from the acquisition has therefore, no force because the Government can always cancel the notifications under Ss. 4 and 6 by virtue of its power under S. 21 of the General Clauses Act and this power can be exercised before the government directs the Collector to take action under S. 7. S. 48 (1) is a special provision for those cases where proceedings for acquisition have gone beyond the stage of the issue of notice under S. 9 (1) and it provide for payment of compensation under S. 48 (2) read with S. 48 (3 ). We cannot, therefore, accept the argument that without an order under S. 48 (1) the notification under S. 4 must remain outstanding. It can be cancelled at any time by Government under S. 21 of the General Clauses Act and what S. 48 (1) shows is that once government has taken possession it cannot withdraw from the acquisition. Before that it may cancel the notification under Ss. 4 and 6 or it may withdraw from the acquisition under S. 48 (1 ). It can be cancelled at any time by Government under S. 21 of the General Clauses Act and what S. 48 (1) shows is that once government has taken possession it cannot withdraw from the acquisition. Before that it may cancel the notification under Ss. 4 and 6 or it may withdraw from the acquisition under S. 48 (1 ). If no notice has been issued under S. 9 (1) all that the Government has to do is to pay for the damage caused as provided in S. 5, if on the other hand a notice has been issued under S. 9 (1), damages has also to be paid in accordance with the provisions of S. 48 (2) and (3 ). S. 48 (1) there fore, is of no assistance to the appellant for showing that successive; declarations under S. 6 can be made with respect to land in the locality ispecified in the notification under S. 4 (1 ). "the enunciation of law made by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case fully supports the, contention of Sri C. S. Kothavale that a claim for compensation under S. 48 (2) can be made only if it is the case of the claimant that he has suffered damages in consequence of notice issued under S. 9 (1) or of any proceedings taken thereunder. It is not the case of the claimant that any notice was issued to him under S. 9 (1) of the Act. We specifically asked Sri S. S. Joshi, learneid counsel appearing for the claimant as to whether it is the case of the claimant that he has suffered any damages in consequence of a, notice issued under S. 9 (1 ). He frankly submitted that that it is not the case of the claimant that any notice was issued in this case under S. 9 (1) of the Act and that therefore, the claimant could not assert that he has suffered damages in consequence of any notice issued under S. 9 (1) or on account of any proceedings taken in pursuance of the notice issued under S. 9 (1) of the, Act. He made it clear that the acquisition proceedings on all the three occasions stood terminated on account of the cancellation notices issued by the Government before the stage of issuing of notice under S. 9 (1) of the Act was reached. He made it clear that the acquisition proceedings on all the three occasions stood terminated on account of the cancellation notices issued by the Government before the stage of issuing of notice under S. 9 (1) of the Act was reached. As the Supreme Court has clearly laid down that a claim for compensation under S. 48 (2) can be made only if it is the case of a claimant that he has suffered damages in consequence of a notice issued under S. 9 (1) or of any proceedings taken thereunder and as no such case has been made out by the claimant in this case, he is cleanly not entitled to claim any compensation by invoking the provisions in S. 48 (2) of the Act. Hence, the court below could not have entertained the reference and enhanced the compensation. ( 7 ) SRI S. S. Joshi learned counsel appearing for the claimant wants us to notice his submission that the expression 'of any proceedings there under' occurring in sub-sec. (2) of S. 48 of the Act does not refer to the proceedings in pursuance of the notice issued under sub-sec. (1) of S. 9 of the Act. The, contention of Sri S. S. Joshi does not merit detailed consideration as the Supreme Court has dealt with this aspect and expressed to the contrary. ( 8 ) FOR the reasons stated above, MFA 923 of 1976 is allowed, the award made by the learned Civil Judge is set aside and the reference is rejected. Consequently MFA 275 of 77 fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties shall bear their respective costs in both these appeals. --- *** --- .