G. P. SHIVAPRAKASH, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner and respondent-4 claim to be the joint owners of certain extent of land in Sy. Nos. 12,13 and 14, in all measuring 15 acres 26 guntas, situated in Vaddarapalya village, Uttarahally Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. ( 2 ) UNDER preliminary notification D/-11-8-1987, published in the Gazette dated 13-8-1987, copy of which is marked as Annex. A, the said lands were notified for acquisition. Under the same notification several other lands belonging to others were also notified by the second respondent for acquisition for the purpose of formation of a layout by the third respondent-Co-operative Society. The declaration under S. 6 (1) was made on 30-6-1988, published in the Gazette on 21-7-1988, copy of which is marked as Annexure-B. ( 3 ) THE case of the petitioner in this petition is since the award, in terms of S. 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, has not been made within a period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration by force of S. 11-A of the said Act, the acquisition proceedings have lapsed. This is the only ground taken in the petition. ( 4 ) THIS Court on 17-9-1993 has passed an interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo. The said interim order was continued by subsequent order dated 29-9-1993. ( 5 ) SRI B. N. Dayananda, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that in view of the fact that no award has been made in this petition within the time enjoined in terms of S. 11a of the Act, the acquisition proceedings have lapsed by force of statute. ( 6 ) ON the last date of hearing i. e. , 28-1-1994, I directed the learned Government Pleader to secure the relevant records regarding the acquisition for the purpose of ascertaining whether as a matter of fact award had not been passed by the second respondent within the statutory period. ( 7 ) FROM the original records produced by the learned Government Pleader, I notice that the second respondent has determined the compensation payable and has passed the award on 13-3-1990. Copy of the said award is marked as Annexure-I, annexed to the statement of objections filed by the third respondent. ( 7 ) FROM the original records produced by the learned Government Pleader, I notice that the second respondent has determined the compensation payable and has passed the award on 13-3-1990. Copy of the said award is marked as Annexure-I, annexed to the statement of objections filed by the third respondent. ( 8 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 13-3-1990 determining the compensation payable to the owners of the land is not an award in terms of S. 11 of the Land Acquisition Act. He submitted that the said order is a mere proposal made by the second respondent and unless the said proposal is approved by the approving authority in terms of the first proviso to sub-section (1) of S. 11, the same cannot be equated to an award. ( 9 ) ON the other hand, Sri. T. S. Ramachandra, learned Counsel appearing for the third respondent-Society submitted that in view of the fact that the order dated 13-3-1990 is made by the second respondent, in so far as the petitioner is concerned by consent, the first proviso to sub-section (1) of S. 11 is not applicable. He submitted that subsection (2) of S. 11 is the relevant provision and it does not contemplate any approval to the order passed by the second respondent by consent determining the compensation payable as is evident from the provisions of subsection (2) of S. 11. ( 10 ) I reproduce below the relevant parts of S. 11 for the purpose of appreciating the rival contentions:"11. ( 10 ) I reproduce below the relevant parts of S. 11 for the purpose of appreciating the rival contentions:"11. Enquiry and award by Collector.- (1) On the day so fixed, or on any other day to which the enquiry has been adjourned, the Collector shall proceed to enquire into the objections (if any) which any person interested has stated pursuant to a notice given under S. 9 to the measurements made under S. 8, and into the value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under S. 4, sub-section (1), and into the respective interests of the persons claiming the compensation and shall make an award under his hand of - (i) the true area of the land; (ii) the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land; and (iii) the apportionment of the said compensation among ail the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, of whom, or of whose claims, he has information, whether or not they have respectively appeared before him; provided that no award shall be made by the Collector under this sub-section without the 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 that the Collector may make such award without such approval in such class of cases as the appropriate Government may specify in this behalf. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (I), if at any stage of the proceedings, the Collector is satisfied that all the persons interested in the land who appeared before him have agreed in writing on the matters to be included in the award of the Collector in the form prescribed by rules made by the appropriate Government, he may, without making further enquiry, make an award according to the terms of such agreement. " ( 11 ) FROM the above provisions it is obvious that the first proviso to sub-section (1) to S. 11 enjoins that no award should be made by the Collector under this sub-section without the previous approval of the appropriate Government or such officer, as the appropriate Government may authorise in this behalf. " ( 11 ) FROM the above provisions it is obvious that the first proviso to sub-section (1) to S. 11 enjoins that no award should be made by the Collector under this sub-section without the previous approval of the appropriate Government or such officer, as the appropriate Government may authorise in this behalf. Whereas, sub-section (2) of S. 11 provides that when all the persons interested in the land who appeared before him have agreed in writing on the matters to be included in the award of the Collector in the form prescribed by rules made by the appropriate Government, he may, without making further enquiry, make an award according to the terms of such agreement. ( 12 ) THE contrariety in language between the first proviso to sub-section (I) of S. 11 and sub-section (2) of S. 11 is obvious. Whereas the first proviso to sub-section (1) of S. 11 clearly enjoins that no award should be made by the Collector under this sub-section without the previous approval of the Government, there is no such bar in sub-section (2) of S. 11. ( 13 ) IN the instant case, the petitioner has filed the statement dated 2-2-1989 in LAQ Nos. 164, 165 and 166 of 1988 before the Special Land Acquisition Officer (Railways) Bangalore. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that he had agreed in writing for passing of the award. The statement dated 2-2-1989 filed by the petitioner before the second respondent is reproduced below :"1. In these acquisition proceedings, my lands bearing Survey No. 12 measuring 5 acres 32 guntas; Survey No. 13 measuring 5 acres 30 guntas and Survey No. 14 measuring 4 acres 3 guntas are sought to be acquired in favour of the petitioner-Society. Out of these lands, I have a claim in respect of half the share in each of them whereas one G. Ramu is claiming in respect of the remaining half share of the lands. 2. The petitioners have mentioned before this authority that they are prepared for acquiring these lands at the rate of Rs. 90,000/- per acre and probably they have produced the agreements to this effect. It has now been ascertained by me that the present market value of the subject lands is around Rs. 2. 2. The petitioners have mentioned before this authority that they are prepared for acquiring these lands at the rate of Rs. 90,000/- per acre and probably they have produced the agreements to this effect. It has now been ascertained by me that the present market value of the subject lands is around Rs. 2. 25 lakhs per acre and therefore, award will have to be passed at the existing market rate and not on the basis of so called agreed rate. It is also ascertained by me that the petitioners have not been uniform in offering the rates in respect of each of the lands and they have quoted their offer in the range of Rs. 90,000 to Rs. 1. 25 lakhs per acre. Since all the lands involved in this acquisition were acquired simultaneously awards cannot be passed at different rates. This respondent has received Rs. 6,11,000/- from the petitioners (Rs. six lakhs eleven thousands only ). 3. While obtaining the so called consent from me the petitioner had assured me that they will allot 4 sites measuring 60' x 80' free of cost to me so that the lesser rate offered by them may be compensated. On the strength of this assurance I also made necessary application before the petitioner Society is not serious about complying with this assurance given to me at the time of obtaining the so called consent on printed forms without filling up all the blanks. Therefore, those documents cannot be strictly considered as letters of consent. 4. In the instant case the petitioners have entered into agreement with me during January, 1988 that too taking my signature on printed forms without filling up the blanks. The advance payment has also been made through cheque dated 8-11-1988. Strictly speaking the request for acquisition could be considered if only the agreements are entered into and advances paid on or before 30-6-1984. 5. However, since the petitioner is not willing to offer the cost of acquisition at the existing market rate I am not willing to concede for the proposed acquisition unless I am offered the price at the rate of Rs. 2. 25 lakhs per acre. In the event of the lands being acquired this authority may independently pass awards at that rate. Otherwise references may be made to the Civil Court under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 2. 25 lakhs per acre. In the event of the lands being acquired this authority may independently pass awards at that rate. Otherwise references may be made to the Civil Court under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Wherefore, I pray that in the event of proposed acquisition, awards may be passed at the rate of Rs. 2. 25 lakhs per acre OR in the alternative reference may be made to the Civil Court as contemplated under the provisions of S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to meet the ends of justice. " ( 14 ) FROM the statement of the petitioner there cannot be any doubt that the petitioner had given consent. But he only states that the consent given by him was on the basis of the assurance given by the third respondent that he would be given certain number of sites. May be, but the fact is he had given consent to the order D/- 13-3-1990 passed by the second respondent. (The statement of the petitioner is found in the records in the Original File of the award proceedings produced by the learned High Court Government Pleader. The original record is returned to her ). ( 15 ) IN view of the fact that the petitioner had given consent to the determination of compensation in terms of sub-section (2) of S. 11, in my view, no approval of any other authority was required for order passed by the second respondent. Therefore, the said order is an award in terms of S. 11 of the Land Acquisition Act. ( 16 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that some other land owners had presented several writ petitions in respect of acquisition of lands notified under the same notification and in the said writ petitions, a learned single Judge of this Court has held that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the said notification have lapsed in so far as the petitioners were concerned. The said decision of the learned single Judge is reported in ILR 1993 Kar 2464 (Chikkamarakka v. State of Karnataka ). No doubt in the said decision it is ruled that mere signing of the order by the second respondent would not amount to an award"unless it is approved by the Government. The Government has accorded approval to the order of the second respondent determining compensation on 16-11-1992. No doubt in the said decision it is ruled that mere signing of the order by the second respondent would not amount to an award"unless it is approved by the Government. The Government has accorded approval to the order of the second respondent determining compensation on 16-11-1992. Therefore, in the said writ petitions it was held that "ex facie the provisions of S. 11-A are attracted and land acquisition proceedings initiated under sections 4 and 6 of the Act stand lapsed. " ( 17 ) IN V. T. Krishnamoorthy v. State of Karnataka (ILR 1991 Kar 1183) a Division Bench of this Court while considering the provisions of S. 11-A, relying upon the decision in Kaliyappan v. State of Kerala ( AIR 1989 SC 239 ) has considered the question whether making of the award means signing of the award. The learned single Judge in ILR 1993 Kar 2464 has referred to the Division Bench decision of this Court in V. T. Krishnamoorthy's case, but has held that it has no relevance to the facts of the case. The order of the learned single Judge is pending in appeal in W. A. 2090/93 and other connected matters, as submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. ( 18 ) IN this petition, it is not necessary for me to consider the question of what amounts to making of the award in terms of first proviso to sub-section (1) of S. 11, since in the instant case there was consent given by the petitioner and therefore in terms of sub-sec. (2) of S. 11 of the Act, no approval of the Government was necessary to the order D/-13-3-1990 made by the second respondent to render his order an award in terms of S. 11 of the Act. ( 19 ) SMT. Bharati Nagesh, learned Government Pleader, submitted that the order D/-13-3-1990 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is an award in terms of S. 11 relying on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in V. T. Krishnamoorthy's case (ILR 1991 Kar 1183 ). ( 20 ) IT is not in dispute that there was an agreement between the petitioner and the fourth respondent on the one hand (joint owner of the land in question) and the third respondent on the other and they had received a sum of Rs. ( 20 ) IT is not in dispute that there was an agreement between the petitioner and the fourth respondent on the one hand (joint owner of the land in question) and the third respondent on the other and they had received a sum of Rs. 12,22,000/- from the Society, as stated in the statement of objections filed by the third respondent. In fact, there is a reference to it in the award dated 13-3-1990 passed by the second respondent. Subsequently, it appears the petitioner has also sought reference, for determination of the compensation amount to the Civil Court, in terms of the provisions of S. 18 of the Act. ( 21 ) I, therefore, do not see any merit in this petition. Hence, the petition is rejected before issue of rule. No costs. Petition rejected. --- *** --- .