JUDGMENT : An award purporting to be a consent award was made on 21st November 2007. The land of the appellant-petitioner was acquired under the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short ‘the said Act of 1966’). The consent award fixes the compensation amount payable to the appellant as Rs.31,00,000/-per acre. The consent award records that if the appellant is not agreeable, he can seek the regular award. Interestingly, on 20th February 2008, at the instance of the appellant, there was a reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the said Act of 1894’) for enhancement of compensation in which, a contention has been raised that in the case of similarly situated lands, larger amount of compensation has been awarded. The matter does not rest here. On 3rd March 2010, the appellant unconditionally entered into an agreement under sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the said Act of 1966 with the State Government by which, he agreed to take compensation @ Rs.31,00,000/-per acre and therefore, it is recorded in the agreement that the appellant has received an amount of Rs.1,24,00,000/-. We may note here that in the application filed by the appellant under Section 18 of the said Act of 1894, he claimed compensation @ Rs.40,00,000/-per acre. 2. It is pertinent to note certain Clauses in the agreement which is a statutory agreement under sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the said Act of 1966 which was voluntarily entered into by the appellant. Clauses 3, 4 and 7 of the said agreement read thus: “3. The rate of Rs.31,00,000/-Lakhs per acre of land is inclusive of the land Solatium interests, additional market value etc., The owner is not entitled to anything on and above the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,24,00,000/-. 4. The payment of the compensation to the owner for the schedule property is towards full and final settlement. The owner is not entitled to seek the reference for enhancement of the compensation Under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 either for the land or for the structures standing there on or any benefit arising from the schedule property. 7. There is no duress, force or coercion for the parties to enter into this agreement of their own volition.” (underlines supplied) 3. 7. There is no duress, force or coercion for the parties to enter into this agreement of their own volition.” (underlines supplied) 3. Thus, the appellant who is described as the owner agreed that he is not entitled to anything over and above the amount of Rs.1,24,00,000/-calculated @ Rs.31,00,000/-per acre by way of compensation for the acquired land. There is a specific clause that the payment of compensation will be towards the full and final settlement of the claim and the appellant will not be entitled to seek enhancement by taking recourse to Section 18 of the said Act of 1894. At no stage, the appellant came out with a case that the agreement is executed in duress or under coercion. In fact, he voluntarily accepted the compensation amount of Rs.1,24,00,000/-. 4. The scheme of acquisition under the said Act of 1966 is slightly different than the said Act of 1894. On publication of a declaration under sub-section (4) of Section 28 of the said Act of 1966 in the official gazette, the vesting of the land in the State Government is complete. Section 29 of the said Act of 1966 reads thus: “29. Compensation.-(1) Where any land is acquired by the State Government under this Chapter, the State Government shall pay for such acquisition compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (2) Where the amount of compensation has been determined by agreement between the State Government and the person to be compensated, it shall be paid in accordance with such agreement. (3) Where no such agreement can be reached, the State Government shall refer the case to the Deputy Commissioner for determination of the amount of compensation to be paid for such acquisition as also the person or persons to whom such compensation shall be paid. (4) On receipt of a reference under sub-section (3), the Deputy Commissioner shall serve notice on the owner or occupier of such land and on all persons known or believed to be interested herein to appear before him and state their respective interests in the said land.” 5. Sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the said Act of 1966 makes it clear that there is an option to determine the compensation by agreement between the State Government and the person to be compensated and if such an agreement is executed, the compensation shall be paid in accordance with such agreement. Sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the said Act of 1966 makes it clear that there is an option to determine the compensation by agreement between the State Government and the person to be compensated and if such an agreement is executed, the compensation shall be paid in accordance with such agreement. It is only when such an agreement is not reached, the State Government is under a mandate to refer the case to the Deputy Commissioner for determination of the amount of compensation to be paid for such acquisition. As per Section 18, the provisions of the said Act of 1894 shall mutatis mutandis apply in respect of an enquiry to be made and award to be passed after reference is made under sub-section (3) of Section 29 of the said Act of 1966 by the State Government. 6. In the facts of this case, after solemnly entering into an agreement under sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the said Act of 1966 and after unconditionally accepting the compensation @ Rs.31,00,000/-per acre, suddenly, on 29th August 2012, a representation was made by the appellant stating that he is entitled to compensation @ Rs.40,00,000/-per acre which was allegedly granted in the case of similarly situated lands. The appellant is banking upon the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.9630/2013 directing the Special Land Acquisition Officer to decide the representation and to pass an appropriate order. 7. On 16th September 2017, an endorsement was issued by the second respondent rejecting the claim of the appellant. Being aggrieved by the said order, a writ petition was filed by the appellant before the learned Single Judge which has been rejected by the impugned judgment and order. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there was a discrimination in the sense that the persons who are the owners of similarly situated lands were awarded compensation of Rs.40,00,000/-per acre, but the appellant is awarded only Rs.31,00,000/-per acre. 9. According to us, the learned Single Judge was right in holding that after having agreed for the consent award and accepting the compensation @ Rs.31,00,000/-per acre, now the appellant cannot seek additional compensation. 9. According to us, the learned Single Judge was right in holding that after having agreed for the consent award and accepting the compensation @ Rs.31,00,000/-per acre, now the appellant cannot seek additional compensation. In fact, the solemn agreement entered into by the appellant under subsection (2) of Section 29 of the said Act of 1966 and the act of accepting compensation @ Rs.31,00,000/-per acre without any protest under the said agreement disentitles the appellant to claim any higher amount of compensation. We, therefore, find no error in the impugned judgment and award. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.