JUDGMENT P. C Balakrishna Menon, C. J.—These writ petitions are by the rental occupants of buildings and portions of land acquired by the Government for the purpose of widening the road between the Victory Tunnel and the Winter Field building in the city of Simla. The notification under sec-tioQ4 0) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 25-2-1986 and was published in two daily news papers on 23-3-1986 and 4-4-1986. Annexure P-8 is the copy of the notification. It was published in the locality on 3-4-1986 and 9-4-1986. Annexure P-8 notification was published in the gazette on 14-64986. 2. The declaration under section 6 of the Act was made on 18-5-1987 and it was published in the gazette on 6-6-1987. The final declaration was published in the news paper on 3-7-1987. The Collector after requisite enquiry under section 11 of the Act passed an award on 1-7-1989. The Government granted approval for the award as per Annexure RA order dated 7-7-1989. 3. Counsel for the petitioners in both these writ petitions challenge the award on the following three grounds: 1. The declaration is not published within one year after the preliminary objections under section 4 (1); 2. The award has not been passed within two years after the declaration was made as required by section 11-Aof the Act ; and 3. The award is in violation of the first proviso to section 11 (1) of the Act. 4. Sub-section (1) of section 4 prescribes the modes of publication of a notification thereunder and the last date of such publication shall be deemed to be the date of publication of the notification. In the present case, the last date of publication of the notification under section 4 (1) was on 14-6-1986 in the gazette. The proviso to section 6 (1) of the Act requires the declaration to be made within one year from the date of publication of the notification under section 4 (I) of the Act. The making of the declaration is different from its publication. In the present case the declaration was made on 18-5-1987, that is, within one year after the publication of the notification under section 4 (1) in the gazette. The making of the declaration is different from its publication. In the present case the declaration was made on 18-5-1987, that is, within one year after the publication of the notification under section 4 (1) in the gazette. Section 11-A introduced by the Amending Act 68 of 1984 enacts that the Collector shall make an award under section 11 within a period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse. The award in the present case is made by the Collector on 1-7-1989 within two years after the publication of the declaration in the news paper on 3-7-1987. 5. We see no merit also in the contention based on the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 11 of the Act. This is a new provision introduced by the Amending Act 68 of 1934. This is a provision for the benefit of the Government to consider whether the price offered by the Collector is fair and reasonable. The Supreme Court in Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1988 SC 1652 has considered the award as an offer by the Collector on behalf of the Government, of the price for the land to be acquired. In these circumstances, section 11-A can be considered to be a provision for the benefit of the Government to examine whether the offer proposed by the Collector is acceptable to the Government. It is not open to the interested persons to challenge the award on the ground that the Collector had not obtained the previous approval of the Government. The proviso can only be construed as directory and any breach of the same will not invalidate the award passed by the Collector. We, therefore, see no merit in any of the points raised by the petitioners. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. 6. Counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners a e carrying on business in a part of the land under acquisition. They have already approached the Government to exclude that portion of the land where they have their places of business. We need heardly state that it is open to the Government to consider their case for exclusion of any portion of the land from acquisition. Writ petitions dismissed. -