ORDER : The petitioner has challenged the order and general award dated 11.09.2017 as well as the award notice dated 4.10.2017 passed by the respondent No.3, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) as per Annexures W, W1 and W2 respectively inter alia seeking for a declaration that the initiation of proceedings on the file of respondent No.3 was one without authority of law. 2. It is contended by the petitioner that the petitioner company was registered under the Companies Act, 1956 on 10.12.1981. The KIADB allotted plot No.144A measuring 7273 sq.mtrs. in Bommasandra Industrial Area, Anekal Taluk, in favour of the petitioner company and the requisite possession certificate was issued on 11/22.05.1982. By virtue of the notification issued under Section 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 dated 23.12.2016, out of this industrial plot, an area measuring about 683 sq.mtrs. were notified for the Metro Railway Project. 3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer-Respondent No.3 has initiated the enquiry proceedings with regard to entitlement for payment of compensation with respect to the subject land on the basis of the complaint/request made by Respondent No.4. The same was challenged by the petitioner before this court in W.P.No.38014/17 which came to be disposed of on 30.08.2017. It is beneficial to quote the relevant passage of the said order, for ready reference. “5. Upon hearing the learned counsel for both parties, I find that there is no legal bar for respondent No.3 – Special Land Acquisition Officer to examine if there is any genuine dispute with regard to entitlement for payment of compensation as can be seen from Annexure-R proceedings, Special Land Acquisition Officer has not come to any conclusion as yet. He has only initiated proceedings and has provided opportunity to both parties to have their say in the matter. Petitioner has also participated in the proceedings. It is open to the petitioner to raise al contentions which have been taken up in this writ petition. I am sure the Special Land Acquisition Officer will consider the contentions of respective parties and take appropriate decision in accordance with law. If the petitioner were to be aggrieved by the same, it would be entitled to assail the order.” 4. I am sure the Special Land Acquisition Officer will consider the contentions of respective parties and take appropriate decision in accordance with law. If the petitioner were to be aggrieved by the same, it would be entitled to assail the order.” 4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the Board has taken cognizance of the complaint/notice/claim of the respondent No.4 despite the order passed by this Court with certain directions as aforesaid. The respondent No.3 has passed the order/award/notice impugned herein sans providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Hence, these writ petitions. 5. The learned counsel Sri.M.R.Rajagopal appearing for the petitioner would submit that in O.S.No.4/2014 renumbered as O.S.No.254/2015 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Kanakapura, the respondent No.4 has filed a counter claim, share to the property belonging to the petitioner company in addition to filing O.S.No.753/2007, for partition. The said litigation would not be a ground for the respondent No.3 to pass the order/award/notice impugned herein. The learned counsel invited the attention of this court to the list of share holders as on 31.3.2015, 31.3.2016 and 31.3.2017 whereby No.1 Sri.V. Varadaraju, No.2 Smt. Vijaya Varadaraju and No.3 Sri. Gajanana Bhat are shown as the share holders. It is submitted that some shares were acquired by Smt.Prameelamma and respondent No.4 had purchased some shares of the company during 1990-91. The mother of the petitioner Smt.Prameelamma has executed a Gift Deed on 20.7.2001, donating the shares in favour of Sri V.Varadaraju. Similarly respondent No.4 Sri. V.Srinivas has also executed a Gift Deed transferring all his shares in favour of his brother Sri. Varadaraju and such transfers have been duly approved by the Registrar of Companies. The learned counsel further argued that the company is a legal entity by itself and no apportionment of compensation has to be accorded and as such the claim of the respondent No.1 is unjustifiable. The respondent No.3 without application of mind passed the orders/notice/award in a perfunctory manner. 6. Learned counsel Sri. The learned counsel further argued that the company is a legal entity by itself and no apportionment of compensation has to be accorded and as such the claim of the respondent No.1 is unjustifiable. The respondent No.3 without application of mind passed the orders/notice/award in a perfunctory manner. 6. Learned counsel Sri. Basavarj V. Sabarad appearing for the KIADB justifying the impugned annexures submitted that in view of the dispute relating to the acquisition of property in question and the pendency of the civil suits between the petitioner and respondent No.4, the Board has referred the matter to the competent court under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, to deposit the compensation amount awarded in terms of the award dated 11.9.2017. Learned counsel submitted that adequate opportunity was provided to the petitioner before passing of the orders impugned herein. 7. Learned counsel Sri. B. Vijay Shetty appearing for respondent No.4 supporting the arguments of the learned counsel for the KIADB submitted that the disputed questions relating to the title of the property in question requires to be resolved only by the competent Civil Court. Such being the position, referring the matter to the Civil Court under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 is justifiable. 8. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the material on record. 9. On the initiation of the proceedings by the respondent No.3 to determine the rights of the parties-petitioner No.1 and respondent No.4, inasmuch as payment of compensation, petitioner had approached this court in Writ Petition No.38014/2017. Liberty was provided to the petitioner to raise all contentions. Respondent No.3 was directed to consider the contention of respective parties and to take appropriate decision in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid, it was obligatory on respondent No.3 to provide an opportunity to both the parties to have their say in the matter. Indisputably, the order at Annexure-W indicates that no opportunity of hearing was provided subsequent to passing of the order by this Court in Writ Petition No.38014/2017 on 30.8.2017. It is imperative that the dates on which the enquiry was made relates to the period prior to passing of the order by this Court. Indisputably, the order at Annexure-W indicates that no opportunity of hearing was provided subsequent to passing of the order by this Court in Writ Petition No.38014/2017 on 30.8.2017. It is imperative that the dates on which the enquiry was made relates to the period prior to passing of the order by this Court. On the other hand, learned counsel for the KIADB also submitted that the documents which are now placed by the petitioner along with the rejoinder marked as Annexures X, X1, X2, X3, Y, Y1 and Y2 were not made available before the SLAO. If that be the situation, there is no compliance with the order passed by this Court in writ petition referred to supra. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order/award/notice at Annexures W, W1 and W2 are not sustainable. Therefore, Annexures W, W1 and W2 are hereby quashed. Proceedings are remanded to the file of respondent Nos.1 to 3 to redo the inquiry in compliance with the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.38014/2017 dated 30.08.2017. This exercise shall be done by respondent No.3 in an expedite manner preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. With the aforesaid observations and directions, writ petitions stand disposed of.