Judgment :- 1. Writ petitioner claims to be the wife of late Anandatheertha, resident of Rampura village, Kanive, Somawarpet taluk, Kodagu district. The petitioner has sought for the following relief: a. quash the endorsement No. LQ:MIS: 11:2008-09 Vide Annexure – A. dt.4.7.20-08 issued by the 1st Respondent herein. b. Issue the writ of mandamus or any other writ or an appropriate direction to the Respondents herein release the compensation to the Petitioner; and c. Grant such other relief as deem fit to grant in the above case and cost. 2. The version of the petition is that her husband late Anandatheerthaa had been granted a bhatamaya tenure land by the erstwhile Rajas of Kodagu for rendition of special service being a person belonging to Brahmin community and that out of such land measuring 3 acres 36 cents in Sy No 8/6 Rampura village, an extent of 38 cents came to be acquired for the purpose of Harangi project under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short, the Act]: that the acquisition proceedings had been initiated in terms of notification dated 18-3-2002 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act; that thereafter for the purpose determining the compensation amount and the persons entitlement to receive the same, notice had been issued under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act has been caused indicating the name of the Khatedar and anubhavdar, wherein the name of husband of the petitioner as per the notice dated 13-5-2003 [copy at Annexure-B to the writ petition] caused under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act; that the husband of the petitioner had represented to the authorities that he had acquired interest to the subject land as bhatamanya Inam land to an extent of 3 acres 36 cents in Sy No 8/6 of Rampura village and the sale deed registered as document dated 10-2-1955, executed by the erstwhile owners-inamdar and therefore though had put forth a claim for payment of compensation pursuant to the notice issued, the said representation had come to be rejected in terms of the endorsement dated 11-12-2006 [copy at Annexure-E to the writ petition] issued by the special land acquisition officer. Harangi project, Hunsur, addressed to the husband of the petitioner; that even thereafter the petitioner had represented on 29-5-2008 to the special land acquisition officer for paying compensation in her favour, as her husband was no more, but that representation also having been come to be rejected in terms of the endorsement dated 4-7-2008 [copy at Annexure-A to the writ petition], reiterating the very reasons as were assigned in the reply to the representation of her husband. Hence, this writ petition for the relief as noticed above. 3. Petitioner has urged that the authorities having issued a notice to her husband and having passed an award, cannot later rescale from this position to deny compensation either to the husband of the petitioner during his life time or to the petitioner only on the ground that the land in question had not been regranted in favour of the husband of the petitioner either in terms of the Coorg Land Revenue Code: that the petitioner subsequent to the death of her husband on 2-4-2007 had come across certain documents relating to the subject land and notwithstanding representation with these documents for compensation, the said representation having been rejected as per the endorsement at Annexure-A, amounts to deny compensation to the petitioner, though she has legitimate right to receive such compensation and therefore the writ petition should be allowed and necessary relief extended to the petitioner. 4. It is also urged that the rejection on the ground that the erstwhile grantee had no right to alienate the subject land is not the correct legal position; that in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court I the case of SL LA & R OFFICER vs M S SESHAGIRI RAO [ AIR 1968 SC 1045 ], even if the land were to be acquired or to be resumed, it can only be after due process of law and if said land is acquired, compensation in accordance with law has to be paid by the government etc., and that further rejection of the representation is bad in law. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not available. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not available. 6. Sri N B Vishwanath, learned AGA, appearing for the first respondent, submits that the petitioner has not actually submitted any documents supporting either her claim or the claim of her husband for ownership by producing commensurate regrant order and therefore she is not entitled for compensation and the endorsement at Annexure-A is tenable and the writ petition should be dismissed. 7. I have perused the petition averments, submissions made on behalf of the first appellant. 8. Whether or not the husband of the petitioner had been regranted the subject land under the enabling provision of Inam Abolition Act or even with the subject land was not alienable by the original grantee, the fact remains that the husband of the petitioner had remained in possession and cultivation of the subject land. It is, therefore, obvious that the subject land was in the possession of the husband of the petitioner at the time of the acquisition. Petitioner being wife while was entitled to agitate for the rights of her husband and it pursue the matter and on her demise even her children who are without any dispute, sons of late Anandatheertha, are equally entitled to pursue the matter for relief. 9. If a land to an extent of 38 cents acquired for the hearing project was undisputedly in the possession of the husband of the petitioner, his legal heirs are definitely entitled to seek for compensation at least to the extent of their possessory right to that extent and the authorities are required to pay compensation to the person in possession at the time of acquisition or to legal heirs of such person. 10. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in part of the extent of quashing the impugned endorsement denying any compensation to the original petitioner herein or her legal heirs, but with a direction to the respondent-special land acquisition officer to consider the representation fo the petitioner for the purpose of determining the compensation payable to a person in possession of an acquired land and to pay the amount in favour of the present petitioners. For such purpose, the matter goes back to the special land acquisition officer, who shall issue fresh notice to the present petitioners viz., the children of Anandatheertha for passing award in their names as legal heirs of said Anandatheertha for payment of compensation payable to them on the basis of their possessory rights as on the date of issue of preliminary notification. All consequences to follow in favour of the petitioners. 11. Rule issued and made absolute.