JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Michael Zothankhuma, J. Heard Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Samuel Vanlalhirata, Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents. 2. The petitioners' case in brief is that they are owner of lands covered by Periodic Pattas. The petitioners' lands were to be acquired by way of Draft Award No. 1/2014. The petitioners' counsel submits that the petitioners were given their compensation, solatium and interest as per Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioners being aggrieved by the amount of compensation given, they submitted a Reference Application dated 30.1.2015 under Section 18 to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Project Implementation Unit, Public Works Department, Mizoram. While the petitioners were expecting the said Special Land Acquisition Officer to refer the petitioners' reference application to the Civil Court, they were surprised to learn that the Special Land Acquisition Officer did not refer the petitioners' reference application to the Civil Court on the ground that the petitioners' lands were acquired under an agreed price vide agreements made by the parties. As such, they were not allowed to make a claim for compensation beyond the agreed price, in violation of the agreements made. 3. The petitioners' counsel submits that the present petition has been filed by the petitioners praying for a direction to be issued to the respondent No. 4 to refer the petitioner's reference application dated 30.1.2015 under Section 18 of the LA Act, 1894 to the Civil Court at Aizawl. 4. The petitioners' counsel submits that the Special land Acquisition Officer who signed the Agreement with the petitioners is not the person authorised to sign on behalf of the Governor, as required in the form of Agreement annexed to the Mizoram Land Acquisition Rules, 2010, and as per the Government of Mizoram (Transaction of Business) Rules, 2014. The petitioners' counsel also submits that the agreement form executed by the parties is not in the same format, as the form attached to the Mizoram Land Acquisition Rules, 2010. As such, the agreement is void. 5. Mr. The petitioners' counsel also submits that the agreement form executed by the parties is not in the same format, as the form attached to the Mizoram Land Acquisition Rules, 2010. As such, the agreement is void. 5. Mr. Samuel Vanlalhriata Chhangte, Government Advocate, on the other hand submits that the respondent No. 4 has rightly not referred the petitioners' reference application to the Civil Court in view of the fact that the petitioners' lands has been acquired by the respondents on the basis of Agreements made between the parties as per Rule 13 of the Mizoram Land Acquisition Rules, 2010. The Learned Government Advocate submits that the petitioners have also received the amount of money reflected in the Draft Award No. 1/2014 and also as reflected in the Agreements signed by them. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7. The Agreements made between the petitioners and the respondents have been made on 4.9.2014, 5.9.2014, 16.9.2014 and 23.9.2014. A perusal of the Agreements made between the parties, as annexed in the writ petition, shows that the format used in the Agreements that have been executed and in the form of Agreement, given in the Mizoram Land Acquisition Rules, 2010 is slightly different. Be that as it may, the Agreements have been made under Rule 13 of the Mizoram Land Acquisition Rules, 2010 and Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 8. Rule 13 of the Mizoram Land Acquisition Rules, 2010 is quoted below:- "13. Form of Agreement- The form of agreement to be executed under sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Act shall be in Form-C." 9. Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is reproduced below: "11. 8. Rule 13 of the Mizoram Land Acquisition Rules, 2010 is quoted below:- "13. Form of Agreement- The form of agreement to be executed under sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Act shall be in Form-C." 9. Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is reproduced below: "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 objection (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 interest 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 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 that Act.] 11-A. Period within which an award shall be made.—(1) 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: Provided that in a 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." 10. The question that has to be decided herein is whether the Agreement becomes void due to the Agreement executed between the parties, not being in the format prescribed in the Mizoram Land Acquisition Rules, 2010. The further question that has to be looked into is whether a land holder is precluded from maintaining an application under Section 18 of the LA Act, 1894, if he accepts the Award made under an agreement/Award, without any demur/protest. The further question is whether the registration of the Agreement is necessary as per law. The last question to be decided is with regard to whether the petitioners have made a challenge to the Agreement so executed by them. 11. A perusal of the agreements signed between the petitioners and the respondents shows that the agreements have been made under Rule 13 of the Mizoram Land Acquisition Rules, 2011. A copy of one of the agreements signed by the petitioners and the respondents is reproduced below:- "Agreement (Under Rule 13 of Mizoram Land Acquisition Rules, 2011 signed by both parties) On this the 4th day of September, 2014, the land owners (whose landed property are to be acquired) and the Govt. Representative have made the following agreement for the purpose of construction of road from Chhumkhum to Chawngte under the Mizoram State Roads-II Regional Transport Connectivity Project. 1 Pass No: P.Patta No. 74 of 1980 2 Location: 26+628 to 26+850 3 Compensation for land Rs. Representative have made the following agreement for the purpose of construction of road from Chhumkhum to Chawngte under the Mizoram State Roads-II Regional Transport Connectivity Project. 1 Pass No: P.Patta No. 74 of 1980 2 Location: 26+628 to 26+850 3 Compensation for land Rs. 142169.00 4 Compensation for crops Rs. 4350.00 5 Compensation for structures Rs. ………….. 6 Solatium Rs. 43956.00 7 Interest Rs. 17582.00 8 Total Rs. 208057.00 On behalf of the Government of Mizoram, SLAO, PIU, PWD will hand over the above mentioned amount to the land owners. Note : As per Rule 47(4) of the Mizoram Land and Revenue Rules, 2013, the owner of the house Pass/Land Lease/Periodic Patta shall surrender 50% of the land value towards Cess (excluding the value of the crops) to the Government of Mizoram." 12. A perusal of the agreements which is annexed to the Mizoram Land Acquisition Rules, 2011 shows that the format is different than the one executed by the parties. However, the agreement, as per the prescribed format, also states that the agreement has been made under Rule 13 of the Mizoram land Acquisition Rules, 2011. A perusal of the wordings given in the two agreements shows that the contents of the agreements are more or less the same. 13. In the case of State of Karnataka & Another v. Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar & Others reported in (2005) 4 SCC 264 at paragraphs 12 to 15, the Apex Court has held that for the purpose of passing a consent award, it is not necessary to comply with the provisions of Article 299 of the Constitution or to draw up the agreement in the prescribed proforma. The agreement does not have to be strictly in terms of the prescribed format. 14. In the present case, the petitioners have not disputed the fact that they have signed the agreements which are annexed to the writ petition. A perusal of the agreements executed, shows that computation has been made for compensation for land, crops, solatium and interest. The provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, wherein Section 23 of the L.A Act, 1894 is to be applied for payment of compensation has been given effect to in the agreement. As such, this Court finds no illegality in the agreements so executed between the parties. The provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, wherein Section 23 of the L.A Act, 1894 is to be applied for payment of compensation has been given effect to in the agreement. As such, this Court finds no illegality in the agreements so executed between the parties. Further, the petitioners have not been able to show that they had taken the awarded amount of compensation under protest. In the State of Karnataka & Another v. Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar & Others (supra), the Apex Court has held that a person who has accepted the award without any demur, were estopped and precluded from maintaining an application for reference in terms of Section 18 of the L.A Act. The Apex Court has also held that a right to receive any solatium or interest can be waived by way of an agreement. However, as reflected in the agreements executed between the parties, the petitioners have been given solatium and interest. 15. In the case of State of Gujarat v. Daya Shamji Bhai reported in (1995) 5 SCC 746 , the Apex Court held that the right and entitlement to seek reference would arise when the amount of compensation was received under protest, in writing, which would manifest the intention of the owner of non-acceptance of the Award. In the present case, the petitioners have not made any averment that they had received the compensation amount given in terms of the agreements and the Award, under protest. In the case of Daya Shamji Bhai (supra), the Apex Court has also held that by virtue of sub Section 4 of Section 11 of the L.A Act, 1894, no agreement made under sub Section 2 of Section 11 shall be liable to registration under the registration Act, 1908. The Apex Court further added that the Award made under Section 11 (2) in terms of the agreement is, therefore, an Award with consent, obviating the necessity of reference under Section 18. 16. In the present case, the petitioners have executed agreements with the respondents, wherein the amount of money to be paid to the petitioners, for acquisition of their lands, have been settled. The award has been made by way of Draft Award No. 1/2014. The petitioners have also received the awarded amount without any protest. 16. In the present case, the petitioners have executed agreements with the respondents, wherein the amount of money to be paid to the petitioners, for acquisition of their lands, have been settled. The award has been made by way of Draft Award No. 1/2014. The petitioners have also received the awarded amount without any protest. The petitioners now want their reference application under Section 18 of the L.A Act, 1894 to be decided on merits, as they want a higher compensation amount than what was agreed upon. However, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the State of Karnataka & Another v. Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar & Others (supra) and Daya Shamji Bhai (supra), the petitioners' application for reference under Section 18 of the L.A Act is not maintainable. Besides the above, the petitioners have not made a challenge to the agreements executed by them with the respondents. 17. In view of the above reasons, the writ petition stands dismissed.