JUDGMENT : 1. Hubballi-Dharwad are the twin cities in the North-West of the State of Karnataka and Dharwad has a permanent Circuit Bench of the Karnataka High Court. To develop a Rapid Transport System, a Company namely “Hubli Dharwad Bus Rapid Transport System” (for short ‘HDBRTS’) was established by the Karnataka State under the provisions of the Companies Act and to develop an Eight Lane road between these twin cities from Unkal Lake, Hubballi to Jubilee Circle, Dhrawad, to diffuse the severe traffic congestion and facilitate the rapid transport, the land in question was acquired by the respondent-State under the provisions of Karnataka State Highways Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) for the said BRTS Project, vide Notification dated 21st November 2012 under Section 15 of the said State Act of 1964. 2. The present Writ Appeals arise out of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge on 17th March 2017, dismissing batch of Writ Petitions lead by Writ Petition No.103516-103563 of 2015 [LA-RES] and repelling the challenge of the petitioners-landlosers, the learned Single Judge held that since the land in question was acquired for the said HDBRTS project by issuing the Notification way back on 21st November 2012 under Section 15 of the Karnataka State Highways Act, the provisions of the new Central Land Acquisition Act known as ‘The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013’ (for short ‘RTFCTLARR Act’) could not be applied to the present acquisition. 3. Another contention raised before the learned Single Judge was that the representation of the petitioners to the effect that instead of acquiring the lands and properties of the petitioners for the purpose of road widening for creating such eight lane road including BRTS, the respondents could construct fly-overs, wherever it was required reducing road width from 35 meters to 30 meters, to provide a smooth flow of traffic, also could not be considered at this stage, since an Award has already been passed in the matter on 08th June 2016 under Section 28 of the Act of 1964. The learned Single Judge also noted that vast majority of the land-losers, whose land was acquired for the said Project had already agreed to such acquisition and had accepted the Consent Awards passed under Section 27 of the Act and had accepted the compensation accordingly. The learned Single Judge also noted that vast majority of the land-losers, whose land was acquired for the said Project had already agreed to such acquisition and had accepted the Consent Awards passed under Section 27 of the Act and had accepted the compensation accordingly. However, the present set of small number of petitioners-appellants in a constant litigation against the said acquisition, wanted to keep their lis alive insisting upon the applicability of new Central Act of 2013, which came into force with effect from 01st January 2014 and therefore, filed the aforesaid batch of writ petitions, which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants, Sri. V.B. Kulkarni, emphatically submitted before us that the provisions of Sections 103 and 107 of the new Central RTFCTLARR Act, 2013, stipulated that the provisions of the said new law were enacted in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force and Section 107 of the new Central Act permitted the State Government to enact any law more beneficial to the affected families by such land acquisition. He, therefore, submitted that since the Award in the present case was not passed before 01st January 2014, the date on which the new Central Act of 2013 came into force, the provisions of the new Central Act of 2013 would apply to the acquisition of the present case in view of Section 24(2) of the new Act of 2013 and the learned Single Judge has erred in holding otherwise. 5. While categorically admitting that Appellants are not against the said BRTS Project and they have not pressed their prayer for laying a challenge to the acquisition itself, however, he drew our attention to the Government Order PWD 175 EAP 2014, Bengaluru dated 14th November 2014 and also of Resettlement Action Plan, Addendum-I, issued by HDBRTS Company Limited in November 2015 and on that basis, he sought to urge that the State of Karnataka in principle had accepted that the provisions of the new Central RTFCTLARR Act, 2013 would apply to the present acquisition also and the compensation has to be disbursed as per the market value on the basis of the guidelines and criteria given in the new Act of 2013. He, therefore, submitted that since the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Authority does not fully comply with these guidelines, the said Award deserves to be quashed by this Court. 6. He also submitted that under the interim orders passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court during the pendency of the aforesaid Writ Petitions, since the reconciliation and compromise talks were going on with the State before the Deputy Commissioner concerned, therefore, the demolition of the properties undertaken by the respondents during the pendency of the litigation before the learned Single Judge amounted to contempt committed by the respondents and therefore, they deserve to be punished suitably. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent HDBRTS Company Limited, Sri. C.V. Angadi, as well as the learned Government Advocate, Sri. C.S. Patil, appearing for the respondent State in unison submitted before us that the provisions of the Central RTFCTLARR Act, 2013 do not and cannot be applied to the present acquisition initiated under the provisions of the Karnataka Highways Act, 1964 and although in terms of the policy decisions taken by the State Government, under the Government Order dated 14th November 2014 supra, the market value for compensation has been determined in the Award on the basis of these guidelines at much enhanced value, that does not make the RTFCTLARR Act, 2013 itself applicable to the present acquisition of 2012. They further submitted that if the petitioners-appellants are not satisfied with the Awards passed by the authorities under Section 28 of the Karnataka State Highways Act, 1964, they have an alternative remedy for seeking the modification and enhancement of the compensation by way of reference under Section 35 of the Karnataka Highways Act, 1964. They have further urged before us that the said Project of great public importance is in progress for the last five years and due to pendency of the present litigation in this Court only by a miniscule percentage by the landlosers, the progress of the said Project is stuck up. They disputed and denied any violation of the interim orders passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court and they have submitted that the present Writ Appeals as well as the Contempt Petition are absolutely misconceived and deserve to be dismissed. 8. They disputed and denied any violation of the interim orders passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court and they have submitted that the present Writ Appeals as well as the Contempt Petition are absolutely misconceived and deserve to be dismissed. 8. We have heard the learned counsels at length and perused the records and the judgment relied upon by the learned counsels for the appellants. 9. The relevant statutory provisions are quoted below for ready reference: “The Karnataka Highways Act, 1964: 15. Acquisition of land or right or interest in land.—If at any time on the application of the Highway Authority, the State Government is satisfied that any land required for the purposes of a highway or any right or interest of any person in any land required for the said purposes should be compulsorily acquired or extinguished, as the case may be, it shall be lawful for the State Government to publish a notification to that effect in the official Gazette. Such notification shall also be published in such other manner as may be prescribed. A notification so published shall be deemed to be the declaration that the land is needed or, as the case may be the right or interest is required to be extinguished for the purposes of the highway; and such declaration shall be conclusive that the land is so needed, or the right or interest is so required to be extinguished. 17. Public notice and other notices of such requirements for acquisition.— (1) The Highway Authority shall then cause a public notice to be given at convenient places on or near such land stating that the State Government intends to take possession of the land, or as the case may be, to extinguish any right or interest in the land and that claims to compensation for all interest in such land, or any right or interest in land to be extinguished may be made to such officer as the Highway Authority may designate. (2) Such notice shall state particulars of the land so needed or right or interest in land to be extinguished and shall require all persons interested in the land or in the right or interest to be extinguished to appear personally or by agent before such officer as may be designated at the time therein mentioned (such time not being earlier than fifteen days after the date of the publication of the notice) and to state the nature of their respective right or interest in the land or, as the case may be, in the right or interest to be extinguished and the amount and the particulars of their claims to compensation for such right or interest or both and their objections, if any, to the measurements made under section 16. The Highway Authority may in any case, require such statements to be made in writing and signed by the party or his agent. (3) The Highway Authority shall also serve notice to the same effect on the occupier of such land and on all such persons known or believed to be interested therein or to be entitled to act for persons so interested, as reside or have agents authorised to receive service on their behalf within the district in which the land is situate. (4) In case any person so interested resides elsewhere, a notice shall be served in the manner provided in section 71. 27. Determination of amount of compensation by agreement.—The amount of compensation payable under section 26, the persons to whom it is to be paid and the apportionment of such amount among the persons interested therein, shall be determined by agreement between the Highway Authority or any officer authorised by the State Government and the person or persons claiming interest therein. 28. Determination of amount of compensation in default of agreement.—(1) In default of any agreement under section 27, the Highway Authority or the officer authorised by the State Government shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, after holding an enquiry, make an award determining,— (a) the true area of the land, if any, acquired; (b) the amount of compensation to be paid under section 26; (c) the apportionment, if any, of such compensation amount among all persons known or believed to be entitled thereto. (2) In determining the amount of compensation, the matter specified in sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended by the Schedule to this Act, shall be taken into consideration. 35. Reference against the award of Highway Authority or authorised officer under section 28.— (1) Any person aggrieved by the award of the Highway Authority or the officer authorised under section 28 may, by written application to the Highway Authority or such officer, require that the matter be referred to the Court of the Civil Judge within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land in relation to which the award is made is situate. (2) Any such application shall be made within six weeks from the date of the award, and shall be in such form as may be prescribed. (3) The provisions of sections 5, 12 and 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, shall apply to the computation of the time fixed for reference under sub-section (2). (4) The Highway Authority or the officer authorised shall make the reference in such manner as may be prescribed. The RTFCTLARR Act, 2013 24. Land acquisition process under Act No.1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases.– (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,— (a) where no award under section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or (b) where an award under said section 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act: Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act. 103. Provisions to be in addition to existing laws.– The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of, any other law for the time being in force. 105. Provisions of this Act not to apply in certain cases or to apply with certain modifications.– (1) Subject to sub-section (3), the provisions of this Act shall not apply to the enactments relating to land acquisition specified in the Fourth Schedule. (2) Subject to sub-section (2) of section 106, the Central Government may, by notification, omit or add to any of the enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule. (3) The Central Government shall, by notification, within one year from the date of commencement of this Act, direct that any of the provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation in accordance with the First Schedule and rehabilitation and resettlement specified in the Second and Third Schedules, being beneficial to the affected families, shall apply to the cases of land acquisition under the enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule or shall apply with such exceptions or modifications that do not reduce the compensation or dilute the provisions of this Act relating to compensation or rehabilitation and resettlement as may be specified in the notification, as the case may be. (4) A copy of every notification proposed to be issued under sub-section (3), shall be laid in draft before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in disapproving the issue of the notification or both Houses agree in making any modification in the notification, the notification shall not be issued or, as the case may be, shall be issued only in such modified form as may be agreed upon by both the Houses of Parliament. 107. Power of State Legislatures to enact any law more beneficial to affected families.– Nothing in this Act shall prevent any State from enacting any law to enhance or add to the entitlements enumerated under this Act which confers higher compensation than payable under this Act or make provisions for rehabilitation and resettlement which is more beneficial than provided under this Act.” 10. We are of the considered opinion that the present Writ Appeals are devoid of any merit and the litigation by the present set of petitioners-appellants is a futile and unsustainable attempt on their part to delay the said Project of great public importance merely by the pendency of the litigation in the Courts of law. We do not find any merit in the legal contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants and we are of the clear opinion that the provisions of the new Central RTFCTLARR Act, 2013 cannot be applied to the land acquisition in the present case initiated under the provisions of the Karnataka Highways Act, 1964 by the issuance of a Notification under Section 15 of the Act way back in the year 2012 on 21st November 2012, much before the commencement of the new RTFCTLARR Act, 2013 with effect from 01st January 2014. 11. 11. It is a misconception of the appellants-petitioners that merely because the State Government has adopted the yardsticks and criteria for determining the market value of compensation on the basis of principles enacted in the new Land Acquisition Act, 2013 in the Government Order dated 14th November 2014 and even the Addendum-I issued by the respondent-HDBRTS Company Limited in November 2015, as envisaged and permitted under Sections 103 and 107 of the Central RTFCTLARR Act, 2013, the said RTFCTLARR Act of 2013 itself became applicable to the present acquisition. It is the date of initial Notification for an acquisition like under Section 4 of the old Central Land Acquisition Act of 1894 or Section 15 of the Karnataka Highways Act, 1964, which is relevant to determine the applicable law. By Government Order dated 14th November 2014 or the Addendum issued by HDBRTS Company Limited in November 2015, neither the Central RTFCTLARR Act, 2013 could be made applicable to the present land acquisition of 2012 nor it has been so done by the respondent-State Government. Therefore, the claim of the appellants that the Act of 2013 applies to the present acquisition and all proceedings for determining the compensation have to be undertaken accordingly is a misconception and the same deserves to be rejected. We do not find any error in the findings of the learned Single Judge in this regard repelling this contention. 12. Section 24(2) of the Central RTFCTLARR Act, 2013 has no application to the present case. Firstly, this acquisition is not under old Central Land Acquisition Act 1894, but under Karnataka Highways Act, 1964. Therefore, Section 24(2) of the Act ex-facie does not apply. Secondly, the possession of the land had also been taken long back and awards have also been passed under Karnataka Highways Act, a majority of them being Consent Awards under Section 27 of the State Act of 1964. Moreover, the new Central RTFCTLARR Act, 2013 does not over-ride and repeal the State’s Karnataka Highways Act, 1964, but as rightly submitted, new Act is not in derogation but in addition to existing State laws in this regard as prescribed under Section 103 and 105 of the said Act of 2013. Moreover, the new Central RTFCTLARR Act, 2013 does not over-ride and repeal the State’s Karnataka Highways Act, 1964, but as rightly submitted, new Act is not in derogation but in addition to existing State laws in this regard as prescribed under Section 103 and 105 of the said Act of 2013. Therefore, on the own showing of the appellants petitioners, the acquisition in the present case could not be said to have lapsed, attracting the provisions of the new RTFCTLARR Act, 2013, when the appellants themselves admit that the present acquisition is under State’s Law (The Karnataka Highways Act, 1964) and they are only seeking enhanced compensation to be paid under the new Central Act of 2013, their contention that Section 24(2) of the Act applies in the present case is demolished by their own contention of claiming only the compensation in terms of new Act of 2013, which we have found to be not applicable to the present acquisition at all. 13. On the other hand, the draft Award at Annexure ‘E1’ in the present case under Section 28 of the Karnataka Highways Act 1964 was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Dharwad on 28th March 2012 and the Final award was passed vide Annexure ‘F’ on 08th June 2016. It was also informed at the Bar by the learned counsel for the respondents that the amount of compensation in terms of the said award has already been deposited with the Reference Court, but the appellants-petitioners have failed to take the disbursement of that compensation, despite intimations sent to them in this regard. However, a majority of land-losers have so taken their compensation under the Consent Awards passed under Section 27 of the Karnataka Highways Act, 1964. 14. The second contention of the appellants-petitioners that the Award deserves to be quashed, because it was not passed in terms of the provisions of the new Central RTFCTLARR Act, 2013, falls to the ground, once we hold that the Act of 2013 does not and cannot be applied to the present acquisition initiated by issuance of the Notification under Section 15 of the Karnataka Highways Act way back on 21st November 2012, much before the commencement of the new RTFCTLARR Act, 2013 on 01st January 2014, irrespective of the enhanced compensation awarded on the basis of policy decisions taken by the State Government in the Government Order dated 14th November 2014. The contention of the appellants that by this Policy decision, the Central RTFCTLARR Act, 2013 was made applicable to the present acquisition is absolutely misconceived and is liable to be rejected. By subordinate Executive Policy decision, like the Government Order dated 14th November 2014, neither the Central Act of 2013 could be applied to this acquisition nor it has been so done. The legislative enactment has a place much higher than such Policy decision in the form of Government Orders. The Policy decision to pay higher market value in consonance with the letter and spirit of Sections 105 and 107 of the RTFCTLARR Act, 2013 does not ipso facto or ipso jure make that enactment of 2013 itself applicable to the present acquisition as a whole. The acquisition still continues to remain under the provisions of Karnataka Highways Act, 1964 and continues to be governed by the provisions of the same State enactment. 15. The appellants can approach the Reference Court under Section 35 the Karnataka Highways Act, 1964 if they are dissatisfied with the Award already passed and can seek modification of the same upon establishing their claim on the basis of relevant evidence, but such proceedings does not have and cannot have any effect on the progress and completion of the said BRTS Project in question. The aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, therefore, cannot be accepted in law and the same is accordingly rejected. 16. That the representation of the petitioners-appellants before the respondents during the negotiations when the matter was pending before the learned Single Judge under the interim orders about the construction of fly-overs instead of widening of road for the said HDBRTS Project, has no merit and once the Technical Experts and the Committee concerned had decided that the HDBRTS Project could be undertaken only with the widening of the roads to the said extent and for that, the acquisition in the present case was initiated and the said Project has already progressed much ahead, such a suggestion of the Appellants has no merit and the same cannot be considered by the respondents at this stage. 17. 17. Moreover, this Court is of the opinion that it is not for the land-owners or land-losers to dictate terms in this regard and it is for the technical experts to take such technical decisions based on a variety of relevant data and statistics compiled by them about the need of such widening of roads or other projects of public importance and Courts can hardly play a role in that. Therefore, the said contention of the appellants is also liable to be rejected and the same is accordingly rejected. 18. Coming to the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants Mr. V.B. Kulkarni, in the case of The Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, Mysore and Others Vs. Anasuya Bai (D) by L.Rs. and others, rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 25th January 2017 in Civil Appeal No.353 of 2017 arising out of SLP (C) No.12581 of 2015, we are of the clear opinion that the said judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellants has no application to the facts of the present case and the learned counsel for the appellants after reading the said judgment before us himself could not find a convincing ground to establish its applicability to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case was dealing with a case of Consent Award under the provisions of Section 11 of the old Central Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in an acquisition made by the State under the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 and the land-holders prayed for quashing of the Preliminary as well as Final Notifications of the Land Acquisition and on the facts of the case, where on account of a family dispute, the petitioners prayed that they were not a party to the consent award, the learned Single Judge permitted the appellant-State to proceed with the fixing of the market value as on the date of the Final Notification after repelling the plea of the landholders that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed. The Division Bench, however, allowed the appeals filed by the landholders and held that since in the meanwhile, new Land Acquisition Act of 2013 (RTFCTLARR Act, 2013) had come into force, whereby the old Land Acquisition Act of 1894 stood repealed and no award had been passed under Section 11 of the old Land Acquisition Act of 1894, the Division Bench quashed the entire land acquisition proceedings. Allowing the State’s appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, setting aside the order passed by the Division Bench of High Court, held that the approach of the Division Bench was totally erroneous and once the proceedings were initiated under the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, Section 11A of the old Land Acquisition Act would not be applicable and on the same parity of reasoning, the provisions of Section 24(2) of the new Land Acquisition Act of 2013 (RTFCTLARR Act, 2013) would also not be applicable. The said judgment, therefore, on entirely different context was of little help to the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioners, but we have still discussed the same only to show that the same is of no assistance to the petitioners-appellants in the present case but, on the other hand, supports the view which we have taken above. 20. We really fail to understand the purpose of filing of the present Writ Petitions and the Writ Appeals, much less the filing of the Contempt Petition against the alleged breach of the interim orders passed by the leaned Single Judge. Firstly, with the dismissal of the Writ Petitions by the learned Single Judge on 17th March 2017, the interim orders came to an end and merged with the dismissal order dated 17th March 2017 and therefore, the contempt petition has to be dismissed straight away as no longer surviving. And even otherwise, we do not find any disobedience of the Court orders on the part of the Respondent authorities. 21. Now, with the conclusion that we have arrived at that even there is no merit in the Writ Appeals also, and the said writ appeals also have to be dismissed as being without merit, we do not find any ground in granting any relief to the present appellants-petitioners in the present appeals. 22. 21. Now, with the conclusion that we have arrived at that even there is no merit in the Writ Appeals also, and the said writ appeals also have to be dismissed as being without merit, we do not find any ground in granting any relief to the present appellants-petitioners in the present appeals. 22. On the contrary, we feel that the said frivolous litigation can seriously jeopardise and protract the developmental project like the making of HDBRTS Project in the present case and therefore, the said litigants should be saddled with costs for unnecessarily wasting the time of the Courts and creating unnecessary hurdles in the completion of the Project of great public importance, which deserves to be completed expeditiously. 23. The Writ Appeals and the Contempt Petition are accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to be paid by each of the petitioners-appellants and such costs will be deposited with the respondents-HDBRTS Company Limited within a period of three months from today. 24. We further direct the Respondents to complete the said Project expeditiously within a period of six months from now and we make it clear that there is no interim order operating or shall be operative against the completion of the said Project either from this Court or any subordinate Courts, except with the specific order from the Division Bench of this Court or Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.