ORDER S.P. Khare, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the notification dated 18-11-1992 issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) and also the award dated 9-2-1995. 2. The only plea which has been raised during the course of the arguments by the petitioners is that the proceedings for the acquisition of the land in dispute have lapsed under Section 11A of the Act. Therefore, the facts relevant to that plea are being stated. The respondent No. 2 Collector, Bhopal issued notification dated 18-11-1992 under Section 6 of the Act. It was published in the official Gazette dated 4-12-1992. This includes the lands bearing Khasra Nos. 110/1 to 110/11 area 3.55 acres of village Nishatpura, Tehsil Huzur, District Bhopal. The public purpose for which the land was to be acquired is to establish a new Mandi. The award was signed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 30-11-1994 and it was approved by the Commissioner on 9-2-1995. The petitioner's case is that as the award was not made within the period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land have lapsed. According to the petitioners, the award shall be deemed to have been made on 9-2-1995 when the Commissioner gave the approval. 3. The respondents No. 1 to 4 have not filed any separate return to justify the making of the award beyond the period of two years. They have only adopted the return filed by the respondent No. 5. It is admitted that the award was approved by the Commissioner on 9-2-1995. 4. The point for determination is whether the Land Acquisition proceedings have lapsed under Section 11A of the Act. 5. In State of U.P. v. Rajiv Gupta, (1994) 5 SCC 686 , it has been held by the Supreme Court that a bare reading of Section 11A indicates and emphasises the limitation within which the award should be made and has been statutorily determined, namely, the Collector shall make an award within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration. It is therefore, a mandatory duty cast on the Land Acquisition Collector to make the award strictly in accordance with the limitation under Section 11A. It is therefore, a mandatory duty cast on the Land Acquisition Collector to make the award strictly in accordance with the limitation under Section 11A. If no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse. It has been further held that under first proviso to Section 11 no award can be made by the Collector without the previous approval of the appropriate Government or of such officer as the appropriate Government may authorise in this behalf. Any award made in violation thereof, renders the award non est and void as it hinges upon the jurisdiction of the Land Acquisition Collector or Officer. 6. In the present case the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 4-12-1992 in the official Gazette. The award was signed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 30-11-1994. It was sent for the approval of the Commissioner. That approval has been given on 9-2-1995 as required by the first proviso to Section 11 of the Act. In view of the above decision of the Supreme Court it was necessary for the Commissioner to give his approval before 4-12-1994. The requirement of the prior approval of the officer authorised by the appropriate Government i.e., the Commissioner, is mandatory for making the award. It is a condition precedent. Since prior approval was not given within the period of two years of the publication under Section 6 of the Act, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of land in dispute stood lapsed. 7. As already state the respondents have not shown any other cause to take the case out of the purview of Section 11A of the Act. The only argument raised on behalf of the respondents is that the date of the award must be treated to be the date on which the Land Acquisition Officer signed the award i.e., 30-11-1994. But that argument is not acceptable in view of the decision of the Supreme Court mentioned above. 8. This petition is, therefore, allowed. It is declared that the land acquisition proceedings in respect to Khasra Nos. 110/1 to 110/11 of village Nishatpura, Tehsil Huzur, District Bhopal commenced by the notification published on 4-12-1992 have lapsed because the award was not made from that date. The impugned award dated 9-2-1995 is invalid.