Breach of a mandatory substantive provision of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 may result in nullification or invalidation of the Act done to achieve the purpose of the Act, but breach of a subsidiary provision will not, in the absence of a specific provision in that behalf, result in nullification or invalidation of such Act.

( 1 ) THESE petitions arise from proceedings to acquire land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), for short Act. Common questions of law have been raised and, therefore, the petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The facts stated in the judgment have been taken from Writ Petition No. 545 of 1991 in which short counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer.

( 2 ) THE facts generally stated in these petitions are as follows:-notification under Section 4 was issued and thereafter declaration under Section 6 was made. Section 17 was applied and possession of the notified land was taken by the Collector before publication of the award. At the time of taking possession there were trees and standing crops on the land and they were damaged but no compensation was paid for such damage at the time possession was taken and compensation for such damage was not included even in the final award. Notice was issued under Section 9 (1) and the petitioners preferred claims for compensation. No date was fixed for hearing of the claims and the award was published in the absence of the petitioners. The petitioners were deprived of the opportunity of adducing evidence in support of their claim. Without giving them opportunity of hearing the award was made which is accordingly ex parte. The award has been made without obtaining the approval of the State Government as required by the first proviso to Section 11 (1 ). The award was not made within the period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration under Section 6 (1) mentioned in Section 11-A and, therefore, the entire acquisition proceedings lapsed. In determining compensation provisions of the Act have been violated which render not only the award invalid but also nullify the entire acquisition proceedings.

( 3 ) IN certain petitions notifications under Sections 4 (1) and 6 ( 1) were issued on the same day which, it is claimed, violates Sec. 17 (4) of the Act.

( 4 ) IN some of the petitions the allegation is that the original claimant died and application was made for bringing his legal representatives on record but the application was not disposed of.

( 5 ) ON the above facts it is claimed that the following provisions of the Act have been violated.

( 6 ) SECTIONS 3 (a), 9 (2), 11, 11-A, 13, 15-A (Proviso), 23 and 31. Paragraph 375 of the Land Acquisition Manual is also alleged to have been violated. On account these alleged violations, it is claimed, on entire acquisition proceedings have either lapsed or have become invalid resulting in invalidation of the award. On these pleas the petitioners pray for the quashing of the entire acquisition proceedings and the award.

( 7 ) IN support of the aforesaid pleas the learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri O. P. Pal has cited the following authorities:- (1)AIR 1966 MP 197 (DB), Smt. Saroj Kumari v. The State of Madhya Pradesh; (2) AIR 1989 P and H 110, Mohinder Singh Sharma v. State of Haryana; (3) AIR 1991 P and H 98 (DB), Sharan Pal Singh v. State of Punjab; (4) AIR 1990 RD 319 (DB) (All), Ram Avadh Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh; and (5) AIR 1991 Delhi 132, Dr. Angelo Fer-nandes v. Union of India.

( 8 ) THE learned Counsel for the opposite parties do not admit that any provision of the Act has been violated. They further submit that even if any provision of the Act relating to determination of compensation and payment thereof has been violated the same does not result in invalidation of the acquisition proceedings or the award. The award, the learned Counsel contends, is merely an offer of compensation. This offer may be accepted without reservation or may be accepted under protest. In the former case the matter ends with acceptance of the payment of the awarded compensation. In the latter case the claimant may receive payment of the awarded compensation and press his claim for the balance by making applicat