ORDER : Ram Mohan Reddy, J. 1. Petitioners are assailing the general award dated 31-12-2013, Annexure-A of the third respondent-Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (for short, 'KIADB') insofar as it relates to 4 acres and 3 guntas in Sy. No. 249 Bannikuppe Village, Harohalli Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District, on the premise that their claim for determination of compensation, ought to be by way of an agreement for determining the amount of compensation under Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short, 'KIAD Act') and are willing to enter into an agreement as the Original Suit No. 441 of 2014 (old No. 251 of 2013) on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kanakapura, instituted by one Smt. Giriyamma and others arraigning the first petitioner as defendant 2, was compromised by judgment and decree dated 11-11-2014, where under the immovable property fell to the share of the first and second petitioners at item 28 of Schedule 'A' to the compromise decree. Sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the KIAD Act provides for determination of compensation by agreement, and in the light of the compromise decree, wherein the property in question proposed for acquisition, the first and second petitioners are entitled to enter into an agreement, entitling petitioners to a better price as compensation instead of a determination under a general award, while acquisition proceeding would attain a finality disentitling the petitioner to challenge the same. In the circumstances, there is a need to interfere with the general award (Annexure-A) insofar as it relates to lands belonging to the petitioners. 2. In the result, these petitions are allowed. The General Award (Annexure-A) insofar as it relates to petitioners' land is quashed. A direction is issued to the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board to consider the case of the petitioners for determination of compensation by way of an agreement, to be complied with as expeditiously as possible, in any event, not later 30-11-2015. It is made clear that this order is made applicable only if there is no further dispute over the judgment and decree over title to the immovable property so acquired and if there is one in respect of rights of the petitioners, shall stand restored, until the dispute is resolved. Learned Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent 1-State. It is made clear that this order is made applicable only if there is no further dispute over the judgment and decree over title to the immovable property so acquired and if there is one in respect of rights of the petitioners, shall stand restored, until the dispute is resolved. Learned Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent 1-State. Sri P.V. Chandrashekar, learned Standing Counsel accepts notice for respondents 2 and 3 and are permitted to file memo of appearance.