Judgment :- Nainar Sundaram, J.: In these two writ appeals, the petitioners in W.P.Nos.8507 and 1987 are the appellants. The respondents in the writ petitions are the respondents in two writ appeals. For the sake of convenience, we are referring to the parties as per array in the writ petitions. The petitioners are aggrieved over the acquisition proceedings prosecuted under the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894, hereinafter referred to as ‘ the Act proceedings under the Act have come to the stage of passing of awards. However, petitioners wanted to quash the very notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act. The single Judge did not countenance the case of the petitioners and dismissed the writ petitions subject to a direction that in respect of the petitioner in W.P.No.8507 of 1987 the reference under Sec.31 of the Act shall be withdrawn, because the petitioner therein alone is to the compensation amount. These two writ appeals are directed against the common of the learned single Judge. 2. Before us, Mr.M.Raghavan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, put in the forefront two points, coveting interference at our hands. The first point taken that for the making of the awards which events happened in September, 1986 after introduction of the first proviso to Sec.11(1) of the Act by Act 68 of 1984, there had been no previous approval of the Government or of such officer as the appropriate Government may authorise in this behalf and hence the awards passed must be down. The second point taken is that the awards were passed not in the presence petitioners and no notice thereof was given to the petitioners immediately thereafter notices were given only in July, 1987, and this feature practically made the acquisition proceedings culminating in the awards giving compensation illusory and abrogated the of the petitioners to receive the compensation amount at the earliest point of time. find that in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions, the first point has been The averments in both the affidavits are to the same effect and it is sufficient, if we the relevant portions of the affidavit in W.P.No.8507 of 1987, as follows: “Under the amended provision of Sec.11, no award shall be made by the Collector under sub-section without the previous approval of the appropriate Government. The petitioner submits that from the facts above stated, it is clear that the Land Acquisition Officer obtained the previous approval of the appropriate Government for passing the Award there is no valid award.” We must note that this point is built on the provisions of the Act itself. Sec.11(1) about the making of the award. Two provisos were introduced to Sec.11(1) of the Act 1984, and they run as follows: “... provided that no award shall be made by the Collector under this sub-section without previous approval of the appropriate Government or of such officer as the appropriate Government may authorise in this behalf; Provided further that it shall be competent for the appropriate Government to direct Collector may make such award without such approval in such class of cases appropriate Government may specify in this behalf.” 3. Under the first proviso, no award be made under sub-sec. (1) of Sec.11, without the previous approval of the appropriate Government or of such officer as the appropriate Government may authorise.in this Under the Second proviso, it shall be competent for the appropriate Government to that the Collector may make such award without such approval in such class of cases appropriate Government may specify. In the present cases, the appropriate Government the State Government. One of the objects and reasons for introduction of the amendments appears to be that pendency of acquisition proceedings for long periods, often hardship to the affected parties and rendering unrealistic the scale of compensation to them, should be avoided and as a measure for fresh assessment, the Collector is before making the award, to obtain the previous approval of the appropriate Government any officer of that Government authorised in this behalf. We do not think that the of the previous approval can be skipped over and as per the express language of proviso introduced, a breach of the requirement of obtaining previous approval will the passing of the award. The respondents did not care to file any counter affidavit the contention taken by the petitioner on this basis. Even before us, in these two appeals the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents is not in a to make any say counter to what has been averred as per the extract made above further produce the records in substantiation of any stand that the previous approval obtained or was dispensed with. Even before us, in these two appeals the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents is not in a to make any say counter to what has been averred as per the extract made above further produce the records in substantiation of any stand that the previous approval obtained or was dispensed with. This obliges us to countenance this point. By our sustaining the first point, we are obliged to strike down the awards passed in the acquisition proceedings against the petitioners. 4. However, Mr.M.Raghavan, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioners, would further and submit that by the infirmities suffered in the passing of the awards proceedings under the Act prosecuted against the petitioners and taking note of infirmities the awards will have to be struck down; the proceedings under the Act could be prosecuted at all against the petitioners on the basis of the notification under and the consequent declaration under Sec.6 of the Act, so as to pass any fresh because the amendments to Sec.6 of and introduction of Sec.11-A into the Act by Act 1984 will come in the way. When we look into these provisions and understand implications, we are convinced that what the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is tenable. 5. Mr.M.Raghavan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, though raised second point at the initial stage of his submission; finding that the first point has been found in favour of the petitioners by us, as per discussion supra, says that he is not pursuing the second point and the said question may left open. Thus, we are not obliged to deal with the second point. 6. Our sustaining the first point obliges us to strike down the very notification under (1) of the Act as prayed for in the writ petitions. Thus, we allow these two writ appeals; aside the common order of the learned single Judge in W.P.Nos.8507 and 8508 of 1987 those two writ petitions will stand allowed as prayed for. We make no order as to costs. Appeals allowed.