A. Gopal Reddy, J.

When the writ petitions were taken up for hearing by a learned single Judge of this court, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar to justify the rejection of request of the petitioners for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act"). The learned judge felt that according to Sec.11 (2) of the Act prima facie, the agreement must be an agreement reached during the course of the proceedings under the Act and he is of the opinion that the language of Sec. 11 (2) does not permit a construction which takes an agreement anterior to the initiation of the land acquisition proceedings within the sweep of the said sub-section. The above judgment does not deal with the specific question of the construction of Section 11 (2) of the Act, and the matter requires an authoritative pronouncement by a Bench of appropriate strength, and therefore directed the Registry to place these matters before the Honourable the Chief Justice for appropriate orders. In pursuance of the said order, the matters were, thus, listed before us.

2.The facts giving r