Judgment :- Sreedharan, J. This Original Petition has come up before us on a reference made by a learned Single Judge of this Court on the question as to whether in a compensation claim under S.48(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, withdrawal notification is necessary or withdrawal from the acquisition can be presumed in a case falling under S.11A of the Act. 2. Short facts necessary for decision of the issue referred are as follows:-A notification under S.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", was published in 1988 for acquiring an extent of nearly 50 cents of property belonging to the petitioner. Gazette notification was dated 26-5-1988 and paper publications dated 10-6-1988 and 17-6-1988 issued. That was followed by a declaration under S.6 of the Act in June, 1988. The last date of the notification published in the paper is dated 17-6-1988. The acquisition was for the Telecommunication Department, for the purpose of construction of a Telephone Exchange building at Pathanapuram. While the acquisition proceedings were in progress, there was an attempt to negotiate with the petitioner for the purchase of the property. Special Tahsildar, who was in charge of the acquisition, valued the property at Rs.11,70,000/- and requested the Telecommunications Department to deposit that amount. He did so pursuant to an undertaking given by the power of attorney holder of the petitioner. The undertaking given by the power of attorney holder is to the following effect: "I, M. Bava Sahib for and on behalf of my sons Mr. B. Majid Sahib and Mr.1J.A. Salim Sahib by power of Attorney hereby agree for the compensation fixed for the award to be passed in respect of the above acquisition, as required by the Telecom Department Vide their letter No.TDM Quilon 1003/bph/bldg/90-91/8 dated 29-5-1990. I also agree that I will not claim/approach the Court for any additional compensation in respect of the acquisition of 19.8 acres of land in Survey No.478/1/21-2 of Puthanapuram Village". This undertaking was filed by the power of attorney holder on 8-6-1990. On getting intimation of this, the Telecom District Manager, Kollam sent communication dated 14-6-1990 informing that the Land Acquisition Officer has not mentioned anything about the implication of the parties undertaking as to whether it is a consent award case or not. They had also forwarded legal opinion obtained by them to the Collector for his remarks. On getting intimation of this, the Telecom District Manager, Kollam sent communication dated 14-6-1990 informing that the Land Acquisition Officer has not mentioned anything about the implication of the parties undertaking as to whether it is a consent award case or not. They had also forwarded legal opinion obtained by them to the Collector for his remarks. The legal opinion obtained by the Telecom Department was to the effect that the dc, Tlment should obtain a clear statement from the Special Tahsildar to the effect that the award to be passed is reckoned as "consent award" and in full settlement of all claims of the landlords. According to the legal advisor, the wordings in the undertaking "as required by the Telecom Department" seems to be intentional, which would give rise to a loophole to the landlords to approach the Court in future. Special Tahsiklar informed the Telecom District Manager that he had not examined the legality or otherwise of the undertaking now given by the power of attorney holder. Thereupon the Telecom District Manager by his communication dated 16-6-1990 informed the Collector that his Department is not able to proceed further without examining the legality or otherwise of the undertaking given by the land owner. Thereupon the Collector sent a communication dated 9-7-1990 to the Special Tahsildar to ascertain whether the party was willing to handover the land to the Post and Telegraph Department as per the land value already fixed and if so, to get an agreement cxccucd after obtaining the fund and to pass an award before the proceedings lapse. To this communication, it appears that the Special Tahsildar replied slating that the landlords are prepared to handover possession on accepting the value already fixed by the officer. District Collector then required. the Post and Telegraph Department to provide the funds and to get the agreement executed at 12.30P.M. on 18-7-1990. But, by that time the two year period fixed under S.11 A of the Act had already expired and it was not possible to pass an award. Consequently the proceedings lapsed. Thereupon petitioners moved the Collector for getting a sum of Rs.3,94,000/- as compensation for the damages under S.48(2) of the Act. 3. As staled earlier, declaration under S.6 of the Act was published on 17-6-1988. Consequently the proceedings lapsed. Thereupon petitioners moved the Collector for getting a sum of Rs.3,94,000/- as compensation for the damages under S.48(2) of the Act. 3. As staled earlier, declaration under S.6 of the Act was published on 17-6-1988. S.11A enjoins the Collector to make an award under S.11 of the Act within a period of two years from the date of the publication of declaration. It also states that if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse. Since declaration under S.6 was dated 17-6-1988, the award should have been passed by the Collector on or before 16-6-1990. It is the admitted case that the Collector did not pass the award on or before 16-6-1990. Even after 16-6-1990, Collector was earnestly pursuing the acquisition proceedings to have negotiated settlement. That is clear from the communications sent by him to the Telecom Division Manager subsequent to 16-6-1990. When the petitioner came forward with an offer to handover possession of the property on getting the amount fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the Telecom District Manager entertained certain doubts. This is evident from his communication dated 29-5-1990, seen at page 483 of the files handed over to us by the learned Government Pleader. We take it worthwhile to read the same: "Kind attention is invited to your office Endt. No.LA3/5030S/S4 dated 30-3-1987 in which the report of the Tahsildar furnishing the details Cor 4(1) notification in respect of I he above acquisition was forwarded (copy enclosed for ready reference). According 10 that report the kind value was fixed at Rs.50,000/- percent. Hut in life payment of compensation requested for the same acquisition by the Spl. Tahsildar 1,A No. 11 Quilon vide his letter No.C.234/87 enihied 16-4-90 the land value fixed is about Rs. 14,000/- per cent (copy enclosed for reference). As there arc chances for the owners to approach the court for enhanced compensation on t-he basis of the valuation made by the Tahsildar at the initial stage, an undertaking from the owners of the land stating that they are satisfied with the compensation fixed now and that they will not claim/or approach the court for any additional compensation in this regard may be obtained as the Department cannot pay huge amount as additional compensation later". This communication is the one referred to in the undertaking filed by the power of attorney holder before the Special Tahsildar. Since that undertaking made specific reference to the letter dated 29-5-1990, the Telecommunication Department wanted to have its legal consequences examined. Special Tahsildar admitted that he had not examined the legal consequences. In such a situation, the Telecommunication Department could not execute the agreement on or before 16-6-1990. The further communication between the Collector and the Telecommunication Department shows that they had no intention to back out from the acquisition proceedings, but they wanted to have the matters clarified. Files thus establish beyond any doubt that the Department had not allowed the proceedings to lapse by efflux of time to cover up the intention to withdraw from the acquisition proceedings. In fact they wanted to push through the transaction. But, the Collector could not pass the award because of the mandate contained in S.11A of the Act. On the facts of this case, we are clear in our mind that the Collector had not allowed time to expire to wriggle out of the acquisition proceedings. In other words, there is no material to show that the Government had any intention to withdraw from the proceedings and with that intention allowed to lapse the period fixed under S.11 A ofthe Act. 4. Section 48 of the Act is in the following terms: "48. 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 Government withdraws from any such acquisition, the Collector 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 III of this Act shall apply, so far as may be, to the determination of the compensation payable under this section". Under clauses (2) and (3), owner of the land is entitled to damages where the Government decides to withdraw from the acquisition proceedings. (3) The provisions of Part III of this Act shall apply, so far as may be, to the determination of the compensation payable under this section". Under clauses (2) and (3), owner of the land is entitled to damages where the Government decides to withdraw from the acquisition proceedings. Situation contemplated by clause (2) does not take within its ambit that arising from the lapse of proceedings under S.11A of the Act. Can the termination of land acquisition proceedings by virtue of the opera lion of S.11 Abe equated to withdrawal from acquisition? Can it be said that the Government had withdrawn from the acquisition proceedings in a case where the notification has lapsed by efflux of time fixed by S.11A of the Act? 5. Section 48 of the Act came up for consideration be fore the Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Vishnu Prasad (AIR 1966 SC 1593). While repelling the contentions that a notification under S.4(1) of the Act can come to an end only by a withdrawal as contemplated by S.48(1) of the Act, Their Lordships observed: "Section 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 provides 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). 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.S; if on the other hand, a notice has been issued under S.9(1), 'damage has also .to be paid in accordance with the provisions of S.48(2) and (3)"... Section 48(2) can come into operation only if there is a conscious withdrawal from the proceedings initiated under the Act. Whenever the proceedings happen to lapse on account of efflux of time and such lapsing is not a result of deliberate or conscious withdrawal from the proceedings, S.48 cannot come into operation. Section 48(2) can come into operation only if there is a conscious withdrawal from the proceedings initiated under the Act. Whenever the proceedings happen to lapse on account of efflux of time and such lapsing is not a result of deliberate or conscious withdrawal from the proceedings, S.48 cannot come into operation. In the instant case even after the lapse of two year period fixed under S.11A, the Collector was earnestly pursuing the matter for getting the agreement executed for the negotiated purchase of the property owned by the petitioners. On the facts and circumstances of this case, we are clear in our mind that no intention to withdraw from the proceedings can be spelled out. Lapse of proceedings under S.11A of the Act can take place even without any volition or conscious decision on the part of the Government to withdraw from the proceedings. When proceedings lapse under such circumstances, according to us, S.48 of the Act cannot come into play. 6. Identical issue came up before a Division Bench Of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in N. Narasimha Rao v. Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh (1990 (3) ALT 462). The Bench observed: "The lapse of proceedings under S.11-A could take place without any volition or conscious decision on the part of the Government as in the present case. In our view, a case of withdrawal from acquisition under S.48 arises only in a situation where the appropriate Government considers the expediency or desirability of concluding the acquisition and then reaches a conscious decision thereon. In other words, there should be an application of mind on the part of the appropriate Government on the question of continuance or otherwise of the proceedings for the acquisition of the land of which possession has not been taken. It would be straining the language of S.48-if the lapse of proceedings under S.11-A are equated to withdrawal of proceedings under S.48 by the appropriate Government". We are in respectful agreement with this statement of the law. As slated earlier, the files now made available by the learned Government Pleader disproves any conscious or deliberate action on the part of the Collector to withdraw from the acquisition proceedings. The Special Tahsildar, who wanted to have the acquisition on the basis of negotiated settlement, did not go into the legal consequences of the terms of lite settlement proposed by the land owners. The Special Tahsildar, who wanted to have the acquisition on the basis of negotiated settlement, did not go into the legal consequences of the terms of lite settlement proposed by the land owners. By the lime the ma tier was pursued, the two year period fixed under S.11 A expired. Consequently, the Collector was incapacitated from passing an award. Lapse of the proceedings under such circumstances can never be considered as a withdrawal from the acquisition proceedings. The result is, S.48 will 'not be attracted to the instant case. The result, therefore, is petitioners are not entitled to claim any compensation in terms of S.48 of the Act. Petitioners are not entitled to the special remedy under S.48(2) and (3) of the Act. In the result Original Petition fails. It is accordingly dismissed.