JUDGMENT : These three Writ Appeals are filed under section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act for certain reliefs. This is a reference made by a Division Bench of this Court for determination of two legal questions involved in these appeals by a full Bench. As per the special order dated 27.9.2005, these matters were placed before this Full Bench. This reference having been heard and reserved, coming on for pronouncement of orders on reference this day, the Acting Chief Justice pronounced the following. ORDER ON REFERENCE It appears from the record that the Division Bench before which Writ Appeal No.1485 of 2003 c/w W.A. Nos. 1468 of 2003 and 1488 of 2003 came up for hearing, referred the following questions of law for the opinion of a Larger Bench: 1. When the Government claims to have taken possession, be it symbolic and illegal, does it have the effect of vesting the land in the Government, as per section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984? 2. Whether the approval granted by the Government to the draft or the proposed award automatically has the effect of passing the award, as per section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act? 2. The circumstances under which the said two questions of law came to be referred for the opinion of a larger bench, as indicated in the order dated 2.8.2005 of the Division Bench, are as under: 3. By an order dated 22.7.2005, the Division Bench in W.A. No. 1485 of 2003 and other connected matters had directed the State counsel to file an affidavit of the concerned officer to indicate as to how the possession of the land in question had been taken and pursuant to such order, although an affidavit had been filed, according to the Division Bench it did not clearly indicate as to the mode of taking possession of the land in question; whether the possession was taken in the manner as contemplated under the Public Premises Act or the Land Revenue Act or any other Statute or Rules and that further the said affidavit did not also indicate whether the occupants of the land in question were put on notice before taking possession of the land in question. The Division Bench further found that in the case at hand, the draft award was sent for approval of the Government and the Government has approved the same, but thereafter the concerned officer has not made the award under his hand and that the Full Bench of this Court had held in the case of POORNAPRAJNA HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY VS. BAILAMMA reported in ILR 1998 KAR. 1441 that the granting of the Government approval is a conclusive act in the award process and that therefore no consequential act need be done, which view, according to the Division Bench has been formed by the Full Bench and delivered without noticing the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS VS. RAJIV GUPTA AND ANOTHER reported in (1994)5 SCC 686 , wherein the view taken is that the concerned officer is enjoined to make an award after obtaining the prior approval of the Government. Under these circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court found that the above questions of law assume significance and hence felt it proper to refer the same for the opinion of the Full Bench. It therefore appears from the record that the Division Bench of this Court before which W.A.No. 1485 of 2003 and other connected matters came up for hearing, referred the above questions of law for the opinion of the Full Bench. In this context, it is pertinent to note that where only questions of law are referred by a Division Bench a Division Bench to Full Bench, the Full Bench must decide those questions only and send the case back to the Division Bench alongwith its answers to the questions. In other words, the Full Bench to which the questions of law have been referred for opinion is not entitled to proceed to dispose of the appeals on merits. This being the settled position of law, we need not advert to the factual aspects of the case involved in any of these appeals and on the others hand, we shall confine ourselves to the legal questions which have been referred to by the Division Bench for our opinion in the matters. Hence we are not making reference to the factual matrix of any of these appeals wherein the above questions of law have arisen and referred for the opinion of this Full Bench. 4. Hence we are not making reference to the factual matrix of any of these appeals wherein the above questions of law have arisen and referred for the opinion of this Full Bench. 4. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the learned counsel for the respondents and the learned State counsel on the above questions of law at some length and carefully perused the relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, to which our attention has been drawn during the course of the arguments. We have also carefully perused the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel on either side including the decisions referred to by the Division Bench in the order dated 22.7.2005, while making the reference. It may however be mentioned that the appellants in all these appeals which came up for consideration before the Division Bench are the beneficiaries of the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants in whose favour the acquisition proceedings had been initiated has contended as under: The appellants are the beneficiaries of the acquisition proceedings. Certain lands of Bangalore South Taluk were notified for acquisition for the benefit of the appellant society under a preliminary notification issued under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 28.1.1985 followed by a final notification/declaration dated 24.1.1986 under section 6 of the Act. Possession of these lands was taken over on 16.1.1997 after the award came to be passed. The writ petitions came to be filed on 7.4.2000 i.e., long after the acquisition proceedings had attained the finality. Possession of these lands was taken over on 16.1.1997 after the award came to be passed. The writ petitions came to be filed on 7.4.2000 i.e., long after the acquisition proceedings had attained the finality. It is in this context, the Court had directed the learned Government Advocate to file the affidavit of the concerned officer as to how the possession of the land in question was taken over and accordingly when the affidavit was filed stating that the Government has taken over the possession of the land in question, the Court being of the view that the affidavit did not indicate the mode or manner in which the possession of the lands have been taken by the State Government and that further since the affidavit did not state whether the person in occupation of the lands were or were not put on notice of taking possession, felt that when the Government merely claims to have taken possession, does it have the effect of vesting land in the Government as per section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. The Court also found that in the instant case, the draft award was sent to the approval of the Government and the Government has approved it, but thereafter the concerned officer has not made the award under his hand and whether in such circumstances, the said approval granted by the Government to the draft or the proposed award automatically has the effect of passing the award as per section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act and that the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of POORNAPRAJNA HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY VS. BAILAMMA reported in ILR 1998 KAR.1441 while observing that the granting of the Government approval is a conclusive act in the award process and that therefore no consequential act need be done, did not take note of the decision of the Apex Court reported in (1994)5 SCC 686 wherein it is held that the concerned officer is enjoined to make an award after obtaining the prior approval of the Government. That the award which has been made in accordance with Section 11(1) of the Act and sent for approval to the Government or the authorized officer on the administrative side, is for all practical purposes an award of the Deputy Commissioner and once the approval is accorded, the same shall be filed in the office as contemplated or as envisaged under Section 12 of the Act. The approval of the State Government or the authorized Officer can be granted only to an award made by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 11 (1) of the Act which is complete in all respects and must be signed by the Deputy Commissioner so that the said award may receive the approval of the Government or the authorized officer and thereafter it will be filed in the office of the Deputy Commissioner so as to make it final and conclusive. The award sent by the Deputy Commissioner to the Government for approval has to be treated as award since the same has been signed by the Deputy Commissioner. To make an award means signing of the award and as such, the award or report sent by the Deputy Commissioner to the State Government for its approval is nothing but an award in its true legal sense. This is because what would be sent by the Deputy Commissioner for approval to the State Government is nothing but an award and that the Deputy Commissioner has already made the award in conformity with the legal requirements as envisaged under Section 11 of the Act and as such, it has all the force or precincts of a legal award and any subsequent approval or non approval of the same, would amount to confirmation or modification of the award. Having in view of the object of the introduction of Section 11-A of the Act, the making of the award means the award signed by the Deputy Commissioner at the first instance and that the scheme of the Act does not contemplate further signing of the award after the same is approved by the State Government. The making of the award under section 11(1) of the Act is within the domain of the Deputy Commissioner and that it should satisfy the requirements thereof. The making of the award under section 11(1) of the Act is within the domain of the Deputy Commissioner and that it should satisfy the requirements thereof. When the award made by the Deputy Commissioner under his hand satisfies the requirements of section 11(1) of the Act, it is an award for all practical purposes and since the compensation to be allowed in respect of the acquired land is based on the opinion of the Deputy Commissioner, who is only an agent of the State Government, it shall have the previous approval of the State Government, which ultimately is required to pay the amount, before it could be filed in the office of the Deputy Commissioner so as to become final and conclusive evidence, as between the Deputy Commissioner and the person interested in the land under section 12 of the Act. Though the Full Bench of this Court in the case of POORNAPRAJNA HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY VS. BAILAMMA REPORTED in ILR 1998 KAR.1441 did not take note of Rajiv Gupta’s case in (1994)5 SCC 686 , the ratio laid down by the Full Bench in Poornaprajna case is the same as the one laid down by the Apex Court in Rajiv Gupta’s case and hence the observations made by the Full Bench in Poornaprajna case are not in any way contrary to the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in Rajiv Gupta’s case. Regarding the vesting of land in the State Government and proof of taking possession of the acquired land, the notification issued by the Deputy Commissioner of the fact of taking possession of the land under section 16(2) of the Act is a conclusive evidence of taking possession of the land and nothing further is required to be placed on record by the State Government in proof of having taken possession of the land in question except the notification issued under section 16(2) of the Act for having taken possession of the land. Therefore whenever a question arises whether the land in question has been taken possession of by the State Government or not and if the State Government produces a notification issued in this regard under section 16(2) of the Act, the Court can always presume that the possession in accordance with law, of the land in question has been taken by the State Government pursuant to the acquisition proceedings initiated by it. 6. 6. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon the following decisions: 1. ILR 1998 KAR.1441 (POORNAPRAJNA HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY VS. BAILAMMA) 2. (1994)5 SCC 686 (STATE OF U.P. VS. RAJIV GUPTA) 3. AIR 1975 SC 1767 (B.N. BHAGDE VS. M.D. BHAGWAT) 4. AIR 1977 SC 1233 (KRISHAN MURARI LAL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB) 7. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents, on the other hand, has contended as under: That on the wording of the first proviso to Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, an award could be made by the Deputy Commissioner only after obtaining previous approval of the Government or the authorized officer and the draft award or the proposed award even if made by the Land Acquisition Officer or the Deputy Commissioner and sent for approval to the Government or the authorized Officer as envisaged under the first proviso to Section 11 of the Act, the same cannot be treated as an award within the meaning of Sections 11 and 12 of the Land Acquisition Act. The approval under the 1st proviso to section 11 of the Act is previous approval and not subsequent ratification. The award made by the Deputy Commissioner or the Land Acquisition Officer and sent for approval to the Government is not award within the meaning of Section 11 of the land Acquisition Act and the mere signing of an award by the Deputy Commissioner expressing his opinion as to the amount of compensation to be offered to persons whose land is being acquired does not amount to the making of an award within the meaning of Section 11 and has no binding effect where the Deputy Commissioner or the Land Acquisition Officer does not intend the document to be final. Some further formality is required in general principle before it becomes binding on the State Government and the formalities are prescribed by Section 12 of the Act. Under Section 12 of the Act, the award made by the Deputy Commissioner after its previous approval must be filed in his office and so become a part of the office record, and then it shall be final and conclusive evidence between the Government and the parties interested. Under Section 12 of the Act, the award made by the Deputy Commissioner after its previous approval must be filed in his office and so become a part of the office record, and then it shall be final and conclusive evidence between the Government and the parties interested. The award made by the Deputy Commissioner under section 11(1) of the Act shall have the previous approval of the State Government and that therefore the award prepared and sent for the approval of the State Government by the Deputy Commissioner is only a draft or proposed award and after the approval of the State Government is granted under the 1st proviso to section 11, it will have to be drawn by the Deputy Commissioner in his hand so as to become final and conclusive for the purpose of section 12 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Act is silent with regard to the mode of taking possession of the acquired land from its occupants under section 16(1) of the Act. Further what is contemplated under the provisions contained in section 16 of the Act, looking to the entire scheme of the said Act, is taking of actual possession by dispossessing the occupants of the land in question. That further in the case of the agricultural land paying land revenue to the Government, the mode of taking possession shall be in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the provisions of the K.L.R. Act. It is only when physical and actual possession of the acquired land is taken by dispossessing the occupant of the said land under a due process of law, after the award is made by the Deputy Commissioner or the LAO under Section 11 of the Act, that the land absolutely vests in the Government and mere symbolical possession of the land, without dispossessing the occupant of the land under a due process of law will not amount to taking of possession of the land in question, as envisaged under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act. If the land in question is an agricultural land, paying land revenue to the Government, the possession whereof could be taken only in the manner as contemplated under the provisions contained in Section 39 of the KLR Act and Rule 149-A of the Rules and the notice referred to in Section 39 and sub-section 2 of Section 96 shall be in Forms 47 and 48 respectively. The provisions contained in Section 39 and sub-section 2 of Section 96 shall be in Form 47 and 48 respectively. The provisions contained in Section 39 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and Rule 149-A of the Rules would clearly manifest that the possession of the revenue paying land could be taken only in the manner as contemplated therein. The Full Bench of this Court in Poornaprajna case in ILR 1998 KAR.1441 did not take note of the specific observations made by the Apex Court in Rajiv Gupta case in (1994)5 SCC 686 and hence the law laid down by the Full Bench in Poornaprajna case is quite contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Rajiv Gupta case hence it needs to be clarified. 8. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents has placed reliance under the following decisions: 1. (1998)4 SCC 387 (LARSEN & TOURBO LTD VS. STATE OF GUJARAT) 2. (2004)4 SCC 79 (R.L. JAIN VS. DDA) 3. 1991 Supp. (2) SCC 228 (VATTICHERUKURU VILLAGE PANCHAYAT VS. NORI V. DEEKSHITHULU) 4. (2009)9 SCC 375 (B.A. BASAVAIAH VS. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY) 5. (1994)5 SCC 686 (STATE OF U.P. VS. RAJIV GUPTA) 6. (1994)5 SCC 690 (CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL CORPORTION VS. EAST INDIA HOTELS LTD.) 7. (1994)1 SCC 44 (RAM CHAND VS. UNION OF India) 8. AIR 2004 SC 1904 (R.L. JAIN VS. D.D.A.) 9. AIR 1992 SC 797 (STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. KALVA SURYANARAYANA) 10. (2003)1 SCC 228 (KANAKA GRUHA NIRMANA SAHAKARA SANGHA VS. NARAYANAMMA) 11. (2001)4 SCC 485 (FIRST LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, CALCUTTA VS. DAULAT SINGH SURANA) 12. (1998)1 SCC 591 (AMARNATH ASHRAM TRUST SOCIETY VS. GOVERNOR OF U.P.) 13. (1997)9 SCC 132 (MOHAN SINGH VS. INTERNATIONAL AUTHORITY OF INDIA) 14. (2000)9 SCC 374 (VALIVALAM DESIKAR CHATRAM TRUST VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (LAND REFORMS) AND OTHERS) 9. NARAYANAMMA) 11. (2001)4 SCC 485 (FIRST LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, CALCUTTA VS. DAULAT SINGH SURANA) 12. (1998)1 SCC 591 (AMARNATH ASHRAM TRUST SOCIETY VS. GOVERNOR OF U.P.) 13. (1997)9 SCC 132 (MOHAN SINGH VS. INTERNATIONAL AUTHORITY OF INDIA) 14. (2000)9 SCC 374 (VALIVALAM DESIKAR CHATRAM TRUST VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (LAND REFORMS) AND OTHERS) 9. Learned State counsel while adopting the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants has contended as under: That the award made by the Deputy Commissioner in accordance with section 11(1) of the Act will be sent for approval to the State Government under the 1st provisio to section 11 of the Act and when once the award made by the Deputy Commissioner under section 11(1) of the Act is approved, it becomes final and conclusive and the same will have to be filed in the office of the Deputy Commissioner under section 12 of the Act. The possession of the acquired land will be taken by the Government in the mode or manner depending upon the nature of the property and the same will be notified in the official gazette in the manner as envisaged under section 12 of the Act and when once it is so notified under the gazette as envisaged under section 16(2) of the Act, the factum of taking possession shall stand proved by the issuing of a notification in the gazette and the same will be treated as evidence for having taken possession of the land by the State Government and no further proof thereof will be required. The answers to the questions of law referred for opinion by the Division Bench are found in the sections themselves and there is no need to seek for answers to those questions anywhere else. 10. In order to appreciate the questions of law arising for consideration in the matter under reference, it would be necessary to take note of sections 11 and 16 of the Land Acquisition Act. 11. Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act reads as under: “11. 10. In order to appreciate the questions of law arising for consideration in the matter under reference, it would be necessary to take note of sections 11 and 16 of the Land Acquisition Act. 11. Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act reads as under: “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 Section 9 to the measurements made under Section 8, and into the value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under section 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 all 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 authorize 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 (1), 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. (3) The determination of compensation for any land under sub-section (2) shall not in any way affect the determination of compensation in respect of other lands in the same locality or elsewhere in accordance with the other provisions of this Act. (3) The determination of compensation for any land under sub-section (2) shall not in any way affect the determination of compensation in respect of other lands in the same locality or elsewhere in accordance with the other provisions of this Act. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), no agreement made under sub-section (2) shall be liable to registration under the Act. State Amendments Karnataka: The Land Acquisition (Mysore Extension Amendment Act 17 of 1961 (1) To section 11 of the principal Act the following proviso shall be added, namely: “Provided that no such award shall be made by the Deputy Commissioner, without the previous approval of the State Government or such officer as the State Government or such officer as the State Government may appoint in this behalf who in the case of an award made by an officer below the rank of the Deputy Commissioner of a district, may be the Deputy Commissioner of the district” (2) For “Collector” substitute “Deputy Commissioner”. 12. Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act reads as under: “16. Power to take possession:- When the Collector has made an award under section 11, he may take possession of the land, which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government, free from all encumbrances. STATE AMENDMENTS Karnataka Land Acquisition (Mysore Extension Amendment) Act XVII of 1961, Sections 18 & 4 (1) Section 16 of the principal Act shall be renumbered as sub-section (1) of that section, and after the sub-section as so renumbered, the following sub-section shall be added, namely: “(2) The fact of such taking possession may be notified by the Deputy Commissioner in the Official Gazette, and such notification shall be evidence of such fact.” (2) For the word “Collector” read “Deputy Commission.” 13. In this context, a reference may also be made to the provisions contained in section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act, which reads as under: “12. Award of Collector when to be final:- (1) Such award shall be filed in Collector’s office and shall, except as hereinafter provided, be final and conclusive evidence, as between the Collector and the persons interested, whether they have respectively appeared before the Collector or not, of the true area and value of the land, and the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. (2) The Collector shall give immediate notice of his award to such of the persons interested as are not such of the persons interested as are not present personally or by their representatives when the award is made. STATE AMENDMENTS Karnataka: Land Acquisition (Mysore Extension Amendment Act XVII of 1961, Section 15 In Section 12- (1) In sub-section (1) after the words “and shall” the words, figures and letter “subject to the provisions of Section 15-A and” shall be inserted; (2) for sub-section (2), the following sub-section shall be substituted, namely – “(2) The Deputy Commissioner shall give immediate notice of his award, of the amendment thereof made under Section 12-A to the persons interested” (3) For “Collector” substitute “Deputy Commissioner”. 14. In the light of the above provisions contained in section 11(1) with its 1st proviso, section 12 and sections 16(1) and (2) of the Land Acquisition act, we shall now proceed to consider the questions of law referred for opinion of this Full Bench by the Division Bench of this Court. QUESTION NO.1: 15. Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act empowers the Deputy Commissioner to take possession of the land after the award is made under Section 11. It is only when possession is taken an envisaged under Section 16 of the Act that the land absolutely vests in the Government free from all encumbrances. In the case of Balwant Narayan Bhagde Vs. M.D. Bhagwat in AIR 1975 SC 1767 , it was held that when the Government proceeds to take possession of the land under the Land Acquisition Act, it must take actual possession of the land, since all interests in the lands are sought to be acquired by it. There can be no symbolical possession in the sense understood by judicial decisions under the Code of Civil Procedure. What the Act contemplates as a necessary condition of vesting of the land in the Government is the taking of actual possession of the land. Such possession would have to be taken as the nature of the land admits of. There can be no hard and fast rules laying down that what act would be sufficient to constitute taking possession of the land. The presence of the owner or the occupant of the land is not necessary to effectuate the taking of possession. Such possession would have to be taken as the nature of the land admits of. There can be no hard and fast rules laying down that what act would be sufficient to constitute taking possession of the land. The presence of the owner or the occupant of the land is not necessary to effectuate the taking of possession. It is also not strictly necessary as a matter of fact or legal requirement that notice should be given to the owner or the occupant of the land that possession would be taken at a particular time. It has been further observed therein that even if the appellant therein enter upon the land and resumed possession (which was only symbolic) the very next moment after the land was actually taken possession of and became vested in the Government, such an act on the part of the appellant did not have the effect of obliterating the consequences of vesting. Once the possession of the property had been taken, on the strength of Section 16 of the Act, the land stood vested in the Government. Sections 16 and 17 of the Act authorize the Deputy Commissioner or the LAO to take possession of the land in ordinary cases under Section 16, and in cases of urgency under Section 17 of the Act. In ordinary cases, possession may be taken after the award has been made and filed, and this without regard to whether it has been accepted, provided the compensation money has been paid or tendered under Section 31 of the Act. The manner of taking possession is not prescribed under Land Acquisition Act, but it is presumed that the Deputy Commissioner or the LAO would enter into occupation, or do something to indicate the fact. Section 47 of the Act directs that if the Deputy Commissioner or the LAO is opposed or impeded in taking possession under this Act, of any land he shall, if a Magistrate, enforce the surrender of the land to himself, and, if not a Magistrate, he shall apply to a Magistrate or “within the towns of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay” to the Commissioner of Police, and such Magistrate (as the case may be) shall enforce the surrender of the land to the Deputy Commissioner or the Land Acquisition Officer. The penalty for offering resistance to the taking of any property by the lawful authority of the public servant is also provided by Section 183 and 186 of the Indian Penal Code. Possession for the purpose of Section 34 must carry the same meaning as possession for the purpose of Section 16 of the Act. As we have already indicated, when the Government proceeds to take possession of the land acquired by it under the Land Acquisition Act, it must take actual possession of the land since all interests in the land are sought to be acquired by it. There can be no question of taking symbolical possession in the sense understood by judicial decisions under the Code of Civil Procedure. Nor would possession merely on paper be enough. What the Act contemplates as a necessary condition of vesting of the land in the Government is the taking of actual possession of the land. Such possession would have to be taken as the nature of the land admits of and there can be no hard and fast rules laying down that what act would be sufficient to constitute taking possession of the land. We should not, therefore, be taken as laying down an absolute and inviolable rule that merely going on the spot and making a declaration by beat of drum or otherwise would be sufficient to constitute taking of possession of land in every case. In order to appreciate what is meant by taking possession of the land under sections 16 or 17(1) of the Act and what is the mode of taking such possession of land, it would depend upon the nature of the land. That is to say, such possession would have to be taken as the nature of the land admits of. There can be no hard and fast rules laying down that what act would be sufficient to constitute taking the possession of the land. Therefore taking possession of the land under section 16 of the Act need not necessarily be in the manner as contemplated under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Similarly, it is not necessary that the land in question should be taken possession of in the manner as prescribed under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. Therefore taking possession of the land under section 16 of the Act need not necessarily be in the manner as contemplated under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Similarly, it is not necessary that the land in question should be taken possession of in the manner as prescribed under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. But what is necessary and material for the purpose of taking possession of the land under section 16 of the Act is the taking of actual possession of the land. In a proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, for acquisition of land all interests are wiped out. Actual possession of the land becomes necessary for its use for the public purpose for which it has been acquired. Therefore, the taking of possession under the Land Acquisition Act cannot be symbolical in the sense as generally understood in civil law. Similarly it need not be in the manner as contemplated under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. What is required under the Act is the taking of actual possession on the spot. In the eye of law, the taking of possession will have the effect of transferring possession from the owner or the occupant of the land to the State Government. It is no doubt true that the Act is silent with regard to the mode of taking possession. It is settled law by series of judgments of the Apex Court that one of the accepted modes of taking possession of the acquired land is recording of a memorandum or Panchanama by the Deputy Commission or the LAO in the presence of witnesses signed by him/them and that would constitute taking possession of the land as it would be impossible to take physical possession of the acquired land. It is common knowledge that in some cases, the owner/interested person may not cooperate in taking possession of the land. The Deputy Commission or the LAO is the best person to speak to the factum of taking and giving delivery of the possession of the land. This is because under section 16(1) of the Act, it is the Deputy Commissioner after an award is made under section 11 of the Act has to take possession of the land, which shall thereupon vests in the Government free from all encumbrances. This is because under section 16(1) of the Act, it is the Deputy Commissioner after an award is made under section 11 of the Act has to take possession of the land, which shall thereupon vests in the Government free from all encumbrances. The fact of such taking possession may be notified by the Deputy Commissioner in the official gazette, and such notification shall be evidence of such fact as envisaged under sub-section (2) of section 16 of the Act. Merely because the revenue records do not show the name of the State Government or the person in whose favour or in whose benefit the land in question has been acquired, mutated and the land was not registered in the name of the appellant, it cannot be presumed that the State Government has not taken possession of the land in question under the Land Acquisition Act. These circumstances are wholly illegal and unjustified. Therefore it is unnecessary for the beneficiary to have the lands mutated in the revenue records and have its name entered therein. It was not for its purpose. It was for public purpose. It may be stated even at the cost of repetition that when the Government proceeds to take possession of the land acquired by it under the Land Acquisition Act, it must take actual possession of the land since all interests in the land are sought to be acquired by it. Therefore there can be no question of taking symbolical possession in the sense understood by judicial decisions under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. Nor would possession merely on paper be enough. What the Act contemplates as a necessary condition of vesting of the land in the State Government is the taking of actual possession of the land. Such possession would have to be taken as the nature of the land admits of. There can be no hard and fast rule laying down what act would be sufficient to constitute taking of possession of land. The possession of the land need not necessarily be taken in the manner as envisaged under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Such possession would have to be taken as the nature of the land admits of. There can be no hard and fast rule laying down what act would be sufficient to constitute taking of possession of land. The possession of the land need not necessarily be taken in the manner as envisaged under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. On the other hand, it is settled law by series of judgments of the Apex Court that one of the modes of taking possession of the acquired land is recording of a memorandum or panchanama by the Deputy Commissioner or the LAO in the presence of witnesses signed by him/them and that would constitute taking possession of the land as it would be impossible to take physical possession of the acquired land. Even the presence of the owner or the occupant of the land was held to be not necessary to effectuate the taking of possession. It was also held to be not strictly necessary as a matter of legal requirement that notice should be given to the owner or the occupant of the land that possession would be taken at a particular time, though it may be desirable where possible, to give such notice before possession is taken by the authorities. In the case of B.N. BHAGDE VS. M.D. BHAGWAT in AIR 1975 SC 1767 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has pointed out that though it cannot be laid down as an absolute and inviolable rule that merely going on the spot and making a declaration by beat of drum or otherwise would be sufficient to constitute taking of possession of land in every case it was held on the facts and circumstances of the case that since the land was lying fallow and there was no crop on it at the material time, the act of the Tahsildar in going on the spot and inspecting the land for the purpose of determining what part was waste and arable and should, therefore, be taken possession of and determining its extent, was sufficient to constitute taking of possession. Thus it has been laid down by the Apex Court that there can be no hard and fast rules laying down that what act would be sufficient to constitute taking of possession of land and such possession would have to be taken as the nature of the land admits of. Thus it has been laid down by the Apex Court that there can be no hard and fast rules laying down that what act would be sufficient to constitute taking of possession of land and such possession would have to be taken as the nature of the land admits of. Section 16(2) of the Act envisages that the fact of such taking possession may be notified by the Deputy Commissioner in the Official Gazette and such notification shall be evidence of such fact. Therefore, whenever a question arises as to whether the acquired land has or has not been taken possession of by the Deputy Commissioner or the LAO for vesting of the land in the Government as envisaged under section 16(1) of the Act, it would be sufficient for the State Government to produce or place on record the notification issued under section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act in the Official Gazette in proof of taking such possession and no further proof is required to establish the fact of taking possession of the acquired land. In other words, the fact of taking possession under sub-section (1) of section-16 of the Act may be notified by the Deputy Commissioner in the Official Gazette and such notification shall be evidence of such fact. Therefore the evidence of the factum of taking possession of the acquired land would be the notification issued by the Deputy Commissioner as envisaged under sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the Act. 15A) As a result of the above discussion, we find that under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, for the vesting of the land in the State Government, the Deputy Commissioner (or the Land Acquisition Officer) must take actual possession of the land since all interests in the land are sought to be acquired by it. Such possession would have to be taken as the nature of the land admits of. There can be no hard and fast rules laying down that what act would be sufficient to constitute taking possession of the land. What the Act contemplates as a necessary condition of vesting of land in the State Government is only the taking of actual possession of the land and such possession would have to be taken as the nature of the land admits of. The manner of actual taking of possession of land is not prescribed under the Act. What the Act contemplates as a necessary condition of vesting of land in the State Government is only the taking of actual possession of the land and such possession would have to be taken as the nature of the land admits of. The manner of actual taking of possession of land is not prescribed under the Act. One of the accepted modes of taking possession of the acquired land is recording of a memorandum or a panchanama by the Deputy Commissioner (or the Land Acquisition Officer) in the presence of witnesses signed by them and that would constitute taking possession of the land as it is impossible to take physical possession of the acquired land. The presence of the owner or the occupant of the land is not necessary to effectuate the taking of possession as it is common knowledge that invariably in most of the cases, the owner or occupier of the land may not co-operate in taking possession of the land. It is also strictly not necessary as a matter of fat or legal requirement that notice should be given to the owner or occupant of the land that possession would be taken at a particular time. The fact of such taking possession may be notified by the Deputy Commissioner (or the Land Acquisition Officer) in the Official Gazette as envisaged under Section 16(2) of the Act and such notification shall be evidence of fact of taking such possession for the vesting of the land in the State Government. Under Section 16, the Deputy Commissioner has been authorized to take possession of land regarding which an award has been made by him under Section 11 and thereupon, the land shall vest in the Government free of all encumbrances. This would virtually be our answer to the Question No.1 referred for our opinion by the Division Bench in the above appeals. Question No.2: 16. This would virtually be our answer to the Question No.1 referred for our opinion by the Division Bench in the above appeals. Question No.2: 16. Under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, on the day so fixed or any other day to which the inquiry has been adjourned, the Deputy Commission (or the LAO) shall proceed to inquire into the objections (if any), which any person interested has stated pursuant to a notice given under Section 9 to the measurements made under Section 8, and into the value of the land (at the date of the publication of the notification under subsection (1) of Section 4) 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 compensation among all 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. By the Amending Act of 1984, a proviso has been added to this Section providing 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 or of such officer as the appropriate Government may authorise in this behalf. The Karnataka proviso is in with the proviso added to sub section (1) of Section 11 by the Amendment Act, 1984. New Section 11-A has been added providing therein that the Collector shall make an award under Section 11 within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse. In case where the said declaration has been published before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, the award shall be made within a period of two years from such commencement. By way of explanation, it has been provided that in computing the two years referred to in this Section, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuant of the said declaration is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded. By way of explanation, it has been provided that in computing the two years referred to in this Section, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuant of the said declaration is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded. In case, the award is made within two years of the final publications, then, such award is taken to be final and conclusive evidence, as between the Collector or Deputy Commissioner and the persons interested, whether they have respectively appeared before the Collector or not, about the true area and value of the land, and the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. The Collector or Deputy Commissioner is required to give immediate notice of his award to such of the persons interested as are not present personally or by their representatives when the award is made. The award made by the Collector is an offer of compensation and the same is not binding on the interested person. If he is not satisfied with the amount of compensation or its apportionment, he can seek a reference under Section 18 of the Act to be made to the District Court of the concerned District for enhancement of the compensation or its apportionment. The award is binding on the Collector or Deputy Commissioner but the claimant is not bound by it. Under Section 16, the Collector has been authorsed to take possession of the land regarding which the Collector has made an award under Section 11, and thereupon the land shall vest in the Government absolutely free from all encumbrances. The point for consideration is what is the meaning of the award under Section 11 and 12 of the Land Acquisition Act? The expression “Award” is not defined in the Land Acquisition Act. As constituted by statute, it is nothing but an award which states the area of the land, the compensation to be allowed and the apportionment among the persons interested in the land of whose claims the Collector or Deputy Commissioner has information. It is the statutory duty of the Collector or the Deputy Commissioner to make an award under the Land Acquisition Act. Under Section 11(1) of the Act, he has to give a decision regarding compensation payable, though his decision is only an offer made on behalf of the Government. It is the statutory duty of the Collector or the Deputy Commissioner to make an award under the Land Acquisition Act. Under Section 11(1) of the Act, he has to give a decision regarding compensation payable, though his decision is only an offer made on behalf of the Government. Before the said award becomes effective and operative, the approval of the Government is necessary. The approval of Government can only be granted to an award made by the Collector or the Deputy Commissioner, which is complete in all respects and must be signed by the Deputy Commissioner or the Collector so that the said award may receive the approval of the Government. (Where the award is approved without any modification, it would relate back to the date on which the award was made by the Deputy Commission or the Collector). As we have already stated, this Section 11 lays down that the collector has to make an award with reference to three matters, namely, (1) the area of the land included in the award; (2) the total compensation to be allowed in respect of that land and (3) the apportionment of the compensation money among all the persons interested in the land or believed to have been interested in the land. Each award should contain within its four corners the fixing up of the value of the land with which it deals and the apportionment of the value between the various persons interested in the land. A statement by the Collector or the Deputy Commissioner as to the amount to be awarded as compensation for the whole land and how it should be apportioned is sufficient. Under Section 11 of the Act, the award need not be made then and there, when the enquiry has been concluded. Nor a further notice need be given to the parties concerned to be present at the time when the award is made. The Collector holding the inquiry or making the award is not a Court and the proceedings are not judicial proceedings. There is, therefore, no question of pronouncing the award in the same manner as the decision of a Court of law. The legal requirements of the form of the award are those specified in items (i), (ii) and (iii) of Section 11. There is, therefore, no question of pronouncing the award in the same manner as the decision of a Court of law. The legal requirements of the form of the award are those specified in items (i), (ii) and (iii) of Section 11. When it has been so drawn up and then signed by the Collector, it is an award made under this Section. Under the Land Acquisition Act, the Collector or the Deputy Commissioner is the persona designata to make the award. He is to make the award and none else. As he is not acting as a judicial officer in making the award, he is at liberty and bound for the purpose of forming the true estimate of what in his opinion is the compensation to be awarded to take into account all the available information at his disposal. Proceedings of the Collector or the Deputy Commissioner resulting in an award are administrative in nature and not judicial and the award in which the inquiry results is merely a decision binding only on the Collector or the Deputy Commissioner as to what sum shall be tendered to the owner of the lands. The award in its final shape is merely a tender as to what sum, the Government through its agent, the Collector or the Deputy Commissioner is willing to pay to the claimant. A perusal of Section 11 along with Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act reveals that an award becomes final only after it has been filed in the office of the Collector or the Deputy Commissioner. The requirements of Sections 11 and 12 of the Land Acquisition Act are that after an award is made, the same shall be filed in the office of the Deputy Commissioner and on being so filed in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, it becomes final and it cannot be changed thereafter. The first proviso to Section 11 of the Act envisages that no award shall be made by the Deputy Commissioner under sub-section (1) of Section 11 without the previous approval of the approval Government may authorize in this behalf. Any award made in violation thereof, renders the award non est and void as it hinges upon the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner. Any award made in violation thereof, renders the award non est and void as it hinges upon the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner. There is a statutory inhibition by the first proviso to Section 11 that the prior approval either of the appropriate Government or of an officer which the appropriate Government authorizes in that behalf is mandatory, for making an award. It is a condition precedent. If no prior approval is given, there is no award made in the eye of law. Section 11 of the Act postulates of conducting an enquiry and making the award by the Deputy Commissioner. The first proviso envisages that no award shall be made by the Deputy Commissioner under sub-section (1) of Section 11, without the previous approval of the appropriate Government or of such officer as the appropriate Government may authorize in this behalf. Any award made in violation thereof, renders the award non est and void as it hinges upon the jurisdiction of the Collector or the Deputy Commissioner. There is a statutory inhibition by the first proviso to Section 11 that the prior approval either of the appropriate Government or of an Officers which the appropriate Government authorises in that behalf is mandatory for making the award. It is a condition precedent. Having the scheme of the land acquisition in mind, it is to be stated that what was sent by the Deputy Commissioner or the Collector after complying with all formalities envisaged under Section 11(1) of the Act approval to the Government is only a proposal, opinion called as formal award, draft award in common parlance and not an award in its legal sense; since the prior approval of the Government is necessary before making an award as envisaged in the first proviso to Section 11 of the Act. There cannot be any doubt that the proviso as it is worded unambiguously requires the Deputy Commissioner to obtain the previous approval of the State Government before making an award. It is evident that if the main Section and the proviso are read together, there shall not be an award without the previous approval of the State Government. An award made under Section 11(1) of the Act is an offer of compensation. The Deputy Commissioner makes an offer. The Deputy Commissioner is an agent of the Government. The Government is the ultimate authority to approve the award. An award made under Section 11(1) of the Act is an offer of compensation. The Deputy Commissioner makes an offer. The Deputy Commissioner is an agent of the Government. The Government is the ultimate authority to approve the award. Therefore, the first proviso enjoins that no award shall be made without the previous approval of the State Government. The Deputy Commissioner acts in an administrative capacity as an agent of the State Government. The area of authority of the Deputy Commissioner is subject to approval by the State Government. The finality of the award under section 11 of the Act rests with the State Government. When the award is made by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 11, the proceedings before him stand terminated as soon as the Award is made (see 2003 AIR SCW 6739). It is true that the proviso to section 11 lays down that no award shall be made by the Collector or the Deputy Commissioner under sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act without the previous approval of the appropriate Government or of such officer as the appropriate Government may authorize in this behalf. Under the 1st proviso to section 11(1) of the Act, the proposed award made by the Deputy Commissioner must have the approval of the State Government or such officer as the appropriate Government may authorize in that behalf. This power of granting or not granting previous approval cannot be equated with an appellate power. “Approval” means an act of confirming, ratifying, assenting, sanctioning or consenting to some act or thing done by another. In the context of an administrative act, the word ‘approval’ does not mean anything more than either confirming, ratifying, assenting, sanctioning or consenting. It will be of doing violence to the Scheme of the Act if the word “approval’ found in the proviso to section 11(1) of the Act under the Scheme of the Act amounts to an appellate power. On the contrary, this is only an administrative power, which limits the jurisdiction of the authority to apply his mind to see whether the proposed award is acceptable to the Government or not. On the contrary, this is only an administrative power, which limits the jurisdiction of the authority to apply his mind to see whether the proposed award is acceptable to the Government or not. It is obvious from the main section-11 that the competent authority to make the award therein is the Deputy Commissioner; it is he who has to determine the value of the land, give his opinion as regards the compensation to be allowed for the land and where there are more claimants, indicate the apportionment of such compensation amongst such persons. As regards the proviso, it unequivocally lays down that no award shall be made by the Deputy Commissioner without the previous approval of the State Government. There cannot be any doubt that the proviso, as it is worded, unambiguously requires the Deputy Commissioner to obtain the previous approval of the State Government before making an award; in other words, the compensation to be proposed by the Deputy Commissioner in the award should have the approval of the State Government. In law, the compensation that is fixed by the Deputy Commissioner in his award is an offer made on behalf of the State Government. Therefore the offer made by an agent is binding on his principal. In this view of the legal position, it would be difficult to contend that the State Legislature could not have required the Deputy Commissioner to seek the previous approval of the State Government, his principal, before finally making the award and filing it under Section 12 of the Act. In law an agent and filing it under section 12 of the Act. In law an agent has to act with the consent of his master or within the scope of the authority and in enacting the proviso to section-11, the State Legislature has given effect to this legal concept by clarifying the scope of powers of the Deputy Commissioner in the matter of fixing the compensation in his award. There appears to be another reason why the State Legislature seems to have amended section 11 of the Act by incorporating this proviso. There appears to be another reason why the State Legislature seems to have amended section 11 of the Act by incorporating this proviso. It is not unlikely, though the cases may be very rare, that in fixing up the compensation, the Deputy Commissioner may be influenced by extraneous considerations in determining the amount of compensation and may fix compensation far in excess of the real market value of such property at the relevant date. The proviso is intended to safeguard against such vagaries and proposals for payment of inflated amounts of compensation which might subject Government to heavy losses. The action of the Deputy Commissioner in holding the enquiry relating to acquisition under the Act is an administrative proceeding in order to enable him to form his own opinion regarding the various matters to be embodied in the award. As regards the contention that the proviso is inconsistent with the main section and that on that account, it is repugnant to law, a has to be noted that the subject of a proviso is to qualify or modify the scope and the ambit of the matter dealt with in the main section; the proviso may impose certain restrictions on the power to be exercised as conferred by the main section or it may in certain cases incorporated circumstances under which extended power may be exercised by the authority concerned. But, under any circumstances, it is well established that the section and the proviso have to be read together and have to be construed harmoniously. It sometimes happens that there is repugnancy between the enacting clauses and the provisions and saving clauses. The question then arises, how is the Act, taken as a whole, to be construed? The generally accepted rule with regard to the construction of a proviso in an Act which is repugnant to the purview of the Act is that where the proviso of an Act of Parliament is directly repugnant to the purview, the proviso shall stand and be a repeal of the purview, as it speaks the last intention of the makers. If the proviso is intended to act as a restraint on the power conferred by the main section, that power shall be construed as one which emerges after conformation with the requirements of the proviso. If the proviso is intended to act as a restraint on the power conferred by the main section, that power shall be construed as one which emerges after conformation with the requirements of the proviso. As we have already stated, the Deputy Commissioner acts on behalf of the State Government and hence there cannot be any repugnancy between the main section and the proviso, if the officer is required to obtain the prior approval of the Government. If the section and the proviso are read together. It would mean that before the Deputy Commissioner makes the award as regards the compensation to be paid for the property to be acquired, he shall secure the prior approval of the State Government. In other words, for the purpose of the section, the opinion which the Deputy Commissioner has to embody in the award is the opinion as modified by the order or direction, if any, given by the Government while approving the proposed amount of compensation. From this point of view, we are unable to see any repugnancy between the proviso and the main section. The proviso which imposes certain restrictions on the opinion of the Deputy Commissioner in proposing the compensation, the Legislature has done nothing more than laying down the policy which should guide the fixation of compensation to be embodied in an award to be made by the Deputy Commissioner. If the main section and proviso are read together, there shall not be an award without the previous approval of the State Government. As we have already stated, the Karnataka proviso is in line with the provisos added to sub-section (1) of section 11 by the Amendment Act 1984. Before the award passed by Deputy Commissioner under section 11(1) of the Act partakes the character of the finality, it should have the prior approval of the State Government. The award made by the Deputy Commissioner under section 11(1) of the Act would become final and conclusive under section 12 of the Act if it had the previous approval of the State Government. That is to say, for the award passed by the Deputy Commissioner under section 11(1) of the Act to become final and conclusive so as to be binding on the State Government, it shall have the previous approval of the State Government. That is to say, for the award passed by the Deputy Commissioner under section 11(1) of the Act to become final and conclusive so as to be binding on the State Government, it shall have the previous approval of the State Government. A combined reading of Section 11 with its 1st proviso and Section 12 would indicate that before the award passed by the Deputy Commissioner under section 11(1) partakes the character of finality as to be binding on the State Government, it shall have the approval of the State Government. In order to gather or know the true meaning of the award under the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act, Section 11 with its 1st proviso cannot be read in isolation, it should be read alongside Section 12 of the Act. If they are so read together, they will make it clear that for the award passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 11 (1) to become final and conclusive as to be binding on the State Government. It shall have the approval of the State Government. The approval is a stage in between the award envisaged under Section 11 (1) and the finality of the award under Section 12 of the Act. In other words, the award passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 11(1) of the Act before it could be filed in the office of the Deputy Commissioner as to become final and conclusive, it shall have the approval of the State Government as envisaged under the 1st proviso to Section 11 (1) of the Act. Therefore, the approval is a stage in between Section 11 (1) and 12 of the Act. 17. We are therefore of the view that after the award is made by the Deputy Commissioner as envisaged under Section 11 (1) of the Act, it shall be sent for approval to the State Government under its 1st proviso and once such approval is accorded, it shall be filed in the office of the Deputy Commissioner and on being so placed, it shall become final and conclusive evidence as between the Deputy Commissioner and the persons interested. When an award is made under Section 11 (1) of the Act, the proceedings before him stand terminated as soon as the award is made. When an award is made under Section 11 (1) of the Act, the proceedings before him stand terminated as soon as the award is made. Such award after its approval by State Government shall be filed in the office of the Deputy Commissioner shall be filed in the office of the Deputy Commissioner as to become final and conclusive evidence as between the Deputy Commissioner and the persons interested. Therefore, what the Deputy Commissioner is required to do under Section 11 (1) with its 1st proviso and under Section 12 is to make the award, send it for its approval to the State Government and after the approval is accorded, such award shall be filed in the office of the Deputy Commissioner as to become final and conclusive. If read in this context, it would show that for the award passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 11 (1) to become final and conclusive it shall have the approval of the State Government as otherwise it becomes non-est. This would be our answer to Question No.2 posed for our opinion. 18. Infact, the questions of law referred for the opinion of the Larger Bench are no longer res integra as noticed by us above and they are already stand answered by the Apex Court in the decisions referred to above. What we are required to do in this reference is only to reiterate the same principle of law which has already been laid down by the Apex Court. Thus the above questions of law referred by the Division Bench for our opinion stand answered as under: ANSWER TO QUESTION No.1: 19. For vesting of land absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances under section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Deputy Commissioner must take actual possession of the land since all interests in the land are sought to be acquired by it. Such possession would have to be taken as the nature of the land admits of. There can be no hard and fast rules laying down that what act would be sufficient to constitute taking possession of the land. Such possession would have to be taken as the nature of the land admits of. There can be no hard and fast rules laying down that what act would be sufficient to constitute taking possession of the land. What the Act contemplates as a necessary condition of vesting of land in the State Government under section 16 of the Act is only the taking of actual possession of the land and such possession would have to be taken as the nature of the land admits of. The manner of actual taking of possession of land is not prescribed under the Act. One of the accepted modes of taking possession of the acquired land is recording of a memorandum or a panchanama by the Deputy Commissioner (or the LAO) in the presence of witnesses signed by them and that would constitute taking possession of the land as it is impossible to take physical possession of the acquired land. The presence of owner or the occupant of the land is not necessary to effectuate the taking of possession as it is common knowledge that invariably in most of the cases, the owner or the occupier of the land may not cooperate in taking possession of the land. It is also strictly not necessary as a matter of fact or legal requirement that notice should be given to the owner of the occupier of the land that possession would be taken at a particular time. The fact of such taking possession may be notified by the Deputy Commissioner (or the LAO) in the Official Gazette as envisaged under section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act and such notification shall be evidence of fact of taking such possession for the vesting of the land in the State Government. Under section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Deputy Commissioner (or the LAO) has been authorized to take possession of the land regarding which an award has been made by him under section 11 of the Act and thereupon the land shall vest in the Government free from all encumbrances. ANSWER TO QUESTION No.2: 20. Under section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Deputy Commissioner (or the LAO) has been authorized to take possession of the land regarding which an award has been made by him under section 11 of the Act and thereupon the land shall vest in the Government free from all encumbrances. ANSWER TO QUESTION No.2: 20. Under section 11(1) of the Act, the Deputy Commissioner shall make the award under his hand satisfying the requirements thereof as per clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) and once the award made by the Deputy Commissioner satisfies the requirements of section 11(1), it is an award for all practical purposes in so far as the Deputy Commissioner making the award is concerned, but before a finality could be attached to such award so as to constitute a valid offer on behalf of the State Government under section 12 of the Act, it shall have the previous approval of the State Government. The previous approval as contemplated under the 1st proviso to section 11 of the Act is for the purpose of section 12 so as to give finality and conclusiveness to such award within the meaning of section 12 of the Act. A combined reading of section 11 with its 1st proviso and section 12 of the Act will make it clear that the award made by the Deputy Commissioner as envisaged under section 11(1) of the Act shall be sent for approval to the State Government in the manner as contemplated under its 1st proviso and when once such approval is accorded, the Deputy Commissioner shall cause to file the same in his office in the manner as contemplated under section 12 of the Act and it shall be final and conclusive evidence as between the Deputy Commissioner and the person interested. Till such approval is accorded as per the 1st proviso to section 11, the award made by the Deputy Commissioner under section 11(1) of the Act will not become final and conclusive within the meaning of section 12 of the Act. Therefore for an award passed by the Deputy Commissioner under section 11(1) of the Act to become final and conclusive and to be binding on the State Government as envisaged under section 12 of the Act, it shall have the approval of the State Government. Therefore for an award passed by the Deputy Commissioner under section 11(1) of the Act to become final and conclusive and to be binding on the State Government as envisaged under section 12 of the Act, it shall have the approval of the State Government. The previous approval of the State Government under the 1st proviso to section 11(1) of the Act is required before the finality is attached to the award made by the Deputy Commissioner under section 11(1) of the Act so as to become final and conclusive and binding on the State Government as envisaged under section 12 of the Act. The previous approval of the State Government as envisaged under the 1st proviso to section 11 of the Act is a stage in between section 11(1) and section 12 of the Act. This is because the award made by the Deputy Commissioner under section 11(1) of the Act would become final and conclusive so as to be binding on the State Government as envisaged under section 12 of the Act when the approval is accorded by the State Government to the award made by the Deputy Commissioner as per the 1st proviso to section 11 of the Act. In other words, the award made by the Deputy Commissioner under section 11(1) of the Act shall become final and conclusive and binding on the State Government an envisaged under section 12 of the Act if it had the approval of the State Government. The 1st proviso to section 11(1) of the Act is prior to the stage of the award made by the Deputy Commissioner becoming final and conclusive and binding on the State Government as envisaged under section 12 of the Act and it is after the award is made under section 11 (1) of the Act by the Deputy Commissioner. The 1st proviso to section 11(1) of the Act is prior to the stage of the award made by the Deputy Commissioner becoming final and conclusive and binding on the State Government as envisaged under section 12 of the Act and it is after the award is made under section 11 (1) of the Act by the Deputy Commissioner. To conclude therefore that after the award is made under section 11(1) of the Act by the Deputy Commissioner, it will have to be sent for approval to the State Government as per the 1st proviso to section 11(1) of the Act and once such approval is accorded by the State Government to the award made by the Deputy Commissioner, it shall become final, conclusive and binding on the State Government as envisaged under section 12 of the Act and it is such award which has received the approval of the State Government shall be filed in the office of the Deputy Commissioner as per section 12 of the Act. 21. The questions referred for our opinion (opinion of the Larger Bench) by the Division Bench stand answered as above and now the matter will have to be dealt with in accordance with law by the Division Bench in the light of our opinion or answers to the questions of law under reference. That is to say, the Writ Appeals will have to be sent back to the Division Bench with the answers rendered by us to the questions referred by the Division Bench for our opinion. We accordingly direct the Registry to send the Writ Appeals back to the Division Bench with the answers rendered by us to the questions referred by the Division Bench so as to enable the Division Bench to dispose of the Writ Appeals on merits in accordance with law and in the light of the answers given by us to the questions referred by the Division Bench. The reference is answered accordingly.