Order B.V. Nagarathna, J. 1. Petitioners are the legal heirs of one Kannappa. They have assailed preliminary notification issued by 2nd respondent under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for the sake of brevity), dated 11-3-2010 Gazetted on 18-3-2010 (Annexure-D to the writ petitions) and final notification dated 19-2-2011 Gazetted on 28-2-2011 issued under Section 6(1) of the Act (Annexure-E to the writ petitions). These notifications pertain to land bearing Sy. No. 12/P14 measuring 01 acre 13 guntas and Sy. No. 12/P9 measuring 25 guntas of Upparabeeranahalli, Lakkavalli Hobli, Tarikere Taluk, Chikkmagaluru District. The main contention of the petitioners in assailing the aforesaid notifications is that award in the instant case has not been passed as far as petitioners are concerned inasmuch as the consent award said to have been passed is not an award in the eye of law as petitioners have not given any consent to that award and thus the acquisition has lapsed in view of Section 11-A of the Act. 2. The matter was listed on several dates and time was granted to petitioners' Counsel to produce a copy of award passed insofar as petitioners' predecessor is concerned. Learned Counsel for petitioners would contend that when no consent has been given by petitioners to the award, then there is no award in the eye of law, which has been passed by respondent-authorities. In such a case, Section 11-A of the Act would apply and acquisition of the lands in question would lapse. In support of that contention, learned Counsel for petitioners has filed a memo enclosing a copy of the award to contend that the said award is a consent award, which is also supported by endorsement issued by respondent-authorities (Annexure-N to writ petitions) along with affidavit of petitioner 3. He, therefore, contended that the matter requires examination at the hands of this Court and the impugned notifications may be quashed. 3. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 7 on advance notice, stated that in the instant case, award has been passed in time and if petitioners have any dispute with regard to award being passed, that has to be assailed before the appropriate forum. Merely because petitioners contend that there is no consent given to the award, it cannot be held that there is no award in the eye of law. Merely because petitioners contend that there is no consent given to the award, it cannot be held that there is no award in the eye of law. He also stated that petitioners' father, Kannappa, was the original khatedar of the lands in question and in fact, he had consented to award and therefore, there is no merit in these writ petitions. 4. I have considered arguments of learned Counsel in light of the material on record and the provisions of law. 5. Section 11 of the Act deals with enquiry and passing of an award. Section 11 contemplates two kinds of awards: one is after holding an enquiry under Section 11(1) of the Act having regard to the parameters stated in that section and the other is under Section 11(2) of the Act, wherein it is stated that Deputy Commissioner can pass an award, which is a consent award having regard to the agreement between landowners and the acquiring authority. Section 11-A of the Act states that an award must be made within a period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration and if no such award is made within the stipulated period, then the acquisition of land would lapse. The explanation to Section 11-A deals with computation of the period of two years, which is not relevant to the purpose of this case. 6. In the instant case, declaration and final notification dated 19-2-2011 was published on 28-2-2011. As per Annexure-L, which is a communication by the Land Acquisition Officer to the Additional Secretary, Revenue. It is noted that award was approved on 16-11-2011. Therefore, it is evident that award was passed prior to that date and it is within the statutory period mentioned under Section 11-A of the Act. The contention of petitioners' Counsel is that when there is no consent given by petitioners, there could not have been a consent award under Section 11(2) of the Act and therefore, there is no award in the eye of law and in the absence of there being a valid award, Section 11-A of the Act would apply and the acquisition insofar as the lands in question has lapsed. Such a contention cannot be accepted for the simple reason that in fact, there is an award, which has been passed. Such a contention cannot be accepted for the simple reason that in fact, there is an award, which has been passed. Whether there was a consent given to that award is not a relevant fact, which is to be considered in order to ascertain the date of passing of the award. The question is as to whether there was in fact an award passed within the stipulated period and if such an award has in fact been passed then, what has been enunciated in Section 11-A of the Act with regard to lapse of acquisition would not apply. 7. In that view of the matter, the contention of the petitioners herein that the acquisition of lands in question has lapsed on account of award not being there in the eye of law cannot be accepted. It is held that award passed in the instant case though stated to be a consent award is an award within the scope of Section 11-A of the Act, which has been passed within the stipulated period and therefore, there is no lapse of acquisition. Hence, there is no merit in the submission of learned Counsel for petitioners. Consequently, writ petitions are dismissed. However, it is observed that if at all petitioners have any grievance with regard to award that has been passed, then they are at liberty to seek remedy in accordance with law. Petition Dismissed.