JUDGMENT G.C. Bharuka, J.—This intra-Court appeal is directed against the order dated 17-6-1998 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 8707 of 1993 upholding the validity of the order dated 21-8-1991/17-2-1988 (Annexure-B) passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, Gulbarga, and the consequential demand dated 30-12-1992/2-1-1993 (Annexure-D) raised against the appellant for a sum of Rs. 9,74,039.99 with interest at the rate of 21% along with service charges of the respondent-Board amounting in all Rs. 11,78,588.40 ps. 2. The appellant is a company engaged in manufacture of cement. It has a factory at Malkhed in Gulbarga District. 3. The 1st respondent-Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (in short the 'Board') is constituted under Section 5 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (in short, the 'KIAD Act'). The Act inter alia provides for securing the establishment of industrial areas in the State of Karnataka and to promote the establishment and orderly development of industries therein. For the purposes of the Act, lands were acquired and final award was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Gulbarga, on 28-6-1982, which was not questioned by the landowners in any manner as required under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the 'Acquisition Act'), which, as per Section 30 of the KIAD Act, mutatis mutandis applies to the acquisitions made thereunder. 4. It is a matter of record that compensation as awarded by the Deputy Commissioner was duly accepted by the landowners. In the writ petition before this Court, it was clearly stated that in the meeting held between the representatives of the appellant-company, the Deputy Commissioner, and the landowners, it was agreed for additional payment by the appellant-company and accordingly ex gratia payment was made to the landowners. Copy of the affidavit in respect of one of the landowners has been placed at Annexure-A. 5. It appears that subsequently the Special Land Acquisition Officer of the Board suo motu passed the order dated 17-2-1988 stating therein that.-- "In the circumstances stated above, the difference of 30% of the solatium market value admissible @ 15% already awarded and difference of the interest @ 9% and 15% as admissible under the amendment Act and the interest actually paid is hereby awarded as worked out in the Statement at Annexure-I". 6. 6. Subsequently, by communication dated 21-8-1991 (Annexure-B), the Special Land Acquisition Officer of the Board presented supplementary award to the Special Deputy Commissioner in a sum of Rs. 4,80,640.18 for his approval. It appears that after receiving the approval, demand was raised against the appellant requiring it to deposit a sum of Rs. 11,78,588.40 as noticed above. 7. In our opinion, the demand raised against the appellant is contrary to the provisions of the KIAD Act and the Acquisition Act and even otherwise it is tainted with mala fides. Once an award is passed and if the person interested does not accept the same, then the only legal remedy which remains with him is to question the same by seeking reference under Section 18 of the Acquisition Act. In the present case, admittedly, no reference was sought by the interested person within the prescribed time. Thus, the award has attained its finality. 8. Apart from the facts as noticed above, the impugned action of the respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer in raising the supplementary demand against the appellant-company under Annexure-D for paying additional payments to the landowners is clearly hit by Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act, which reads thus: "Section 29. Compensation.--(1) xxx (2) Where the amount of compensation has been determined by agreement between the State Government and the person to be compensated, it shall be paid in accordance with such agreement". 9. Similarly, Section 11(2) of the Acquisition Act also provides for entering into a written agreement by all the interested persons regarding quantum of award. This section reads thus: "11. Enquiry and award by collector.- (1) xxx (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), if at any stage of the proceedings, the Deputy Commissioner 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 Deputy Commissioner 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". 10. In terms of the above provisions, as stated in the writ petition, it was agreed between the parties that the landowners should be given ex gratia payment in addition to compensation granted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. 10. In terms of the above provisions, as stated in the writ petition, it was agreed between the parties that the landowners should be given ex gratia payment in addition to compensation granted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. It is a matter of record that in terms of the above provisions, the landowners had entered into an agreement with the Government and the beneficiary in relation to quantum of compensation including solatium payable to them and had accepted the amounts so determined as full and final settlement of their claims. They had also filed affidavits to that extent as is evident from Annexure-A. Despite these facts, the Special Land Acquisition Officer of his own, had raised impugned supplementary demands, which ex facie seems to be mala fide and impermissible. 11. In the case of Smt. Sushila Devi Vs. Ramanandan Prasad and Others, AIR 1976 SC 177 , it has been held that "for a finality of litigation, a person should not be vexed twice for the same cause". We are of the considered opinion that in the present case, since the landowners had accepted the award passed pursuant to agreement between the parties and the same having attained finality, the respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer could not have passed the supplementary award. 12. Learned Counsel for the respondents could not bring to our notice any statutory provisions under which the respondent could have made the supplementary award that too after a lapse of 6 years. Moreover, even a reference under Section 18 of the Acquisition Act is not maintainable after the lapse of prescribed period as held by the Supreme Court in the case of K. Kankarathnamma and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, AIR 1965 SC 304 . 13. It appears that the above legal aspects were not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, which has resulted in passing of the impugned order affirming the impugned supplementary award. 14. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, we set aside the order dated 17-6-1998 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 8707 of 1993 and quash the consequential demand dated 30-12-1992/2-1-1993 (Annexure-D) passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. 15. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs.