ORDER : R. DEVDAS, J. 1. The first petitioner is the sublessee who has put up a petrol bunk in the petition schedule property measuring about 10000 sq. ft. It is the contention of the petitioners that the first respondent, for the benefit of the fourth respondentBangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, initiated acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act (for short ‘KIAD’ Act’). The Government has issued preliminary notification proposing to acquire various extent of land including land measuring 2151.43 sq. mtrs. in Sy.Nos.135/1 and 135/2 of Nagavara Village. Admittedly, the notified khatedars are R.Chandrashekar and Smt.Saraswathi, i.e., the respondent No.6. The prayer in these petitions is to quash the preliminary notification dated 29.08.2018 and final notification dated 17.01.2019 or in the alternative, direct the case of the petitioners for consideration of apportionment of compensation while considering the Report on Loss Due to Compulsory Acquisition of Fixed Establishment of the first petitioner as submitted by the second petitioner vide Annexure ‘H’. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Inder Prashad Vs. Union of India and Others reported in (1994) 5 SCC 239 . While drawing the attention of this Court to paragraph5, it is submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer is duty bound to determine the compensation payable towards the leasehold interest held by the petitioners herein. Similarly, it is submitted that a Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala in the case of Chief Dvnl. Manager, B.P.C Limited Vs. State of Kerala and Others reported in 2003 SCC OnLine Ker 434 has held that in view of Section 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, which provides for a special provision relating to leases for commercial or industrial purposes, if the lessee has constructed buildings for such commercial or industrial purposes, he shall not be liable to be evicted from such land but shall be liable to pay rent under the contract of tenancy and such rent shall be liable to be varied every twelve years. While considering the said provision and various decisions, the Division Bench has held that while there is loss to the landlord, there is also loss to the tenant who is entitled to fixity of tenure and accordingly, it was held that the tenant is entitled for a portion of compensation. While considering the said provision and various decisions, the Division Bench has held that while there is loss to the landlord, there is also loss to the tenant who is entitled to fixity of tenure and accordingly, it was held that the tenant is entitled for a portion of compensation. 3. Per contra, the learned Counsel for respondent No.6landlord would submit that the first petitioner is not the lessee under the sixth respondent, while it is the second petitioner who is the lessee. Although the learned Counsel for the sixth respondent would fairly point out from the lease deed that there is a clause for subletting, but it is in favour of M/s.IBP Co. Limited, an existing Company within the meaning of the Companies Act, and having its registered office at “IBP House”, No.34A, Nirmal Chandra Street, Calcutta, for the purpose of installation of Petroleum Retail Outlet. 4. It is therefore submitted by the learned Counsel for respondent No.6 that there being no relationship of landlord and tenant between the sixth respondent and the first petitioner, the first petitioner cannot object to the acquisition proceedings and neither can he claim compensation. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that there are two items of property belonging to the sixth respondent and her husband which are sought to be acquired i.e., Sy.Nos.135/1 and 135/2, whereas what is leased under the lease deed dated 05.10.2004 is only a portion of the property situated in Sy.No.135/2 and therefore there cannot be any objection or contention with respect to Sy.No.135/1 and the remaining portion of Sy.No.135/2 which is not the subject matter of the leasehold rights. 5. Learned Counsel Sri P.V.Chandrashekar, appearing for respondents No.2 and 3the acquiring agency, would submit that if the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that compensation will have to be determined even towards the construction or fixed establishment on the acquired land, then in terms of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the acquiring agency will determine the compensation and if there is claim for apportionment in terms of the provisions of the Act, the award will be referred in terms of the provisions of the law. 6. Heard the learned Counsels and perused the petition papers. 7. 6. Heard the learned Counsels and perused the petition papers. 7. It is seen from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of InderParshadthat where the land belongs to the Government and leaseholder has put up a super structure and was in possession and enjoyment of the same on the date of acquisition, so long as the lessee acts and complies with the convenants contained in the lease or the grant, the right to resumption in terms of the lease or grant would not arise. But when the land is required for public purpose, the Government should get absolute title thereof free from all encumbrances. Compensation becomes payable for the leasehold right or interest held by the lessee or grantee when the land is acquired. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also given several illustrations to drive home the point that if on the date of the acquisition the land comprises of a fixed structure where a third party, not being the owner, is running his business, the Land Acquisition Officer is duty bound to take into consideration all these aspects and then determine the compensation. 8. It was also observed that after making the award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposit of the compensation, the Land Acquisition Officer is entitled under Section 16 of the Act to take possession of the land, since the provision says that the land shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. It was noticed that in that case, the Land Acquisition Officer, in his award under Section 11 of the Act, had fixed the compensation payable not only for the pre-existing right, title and interest of the lessee but also of the lessee, the Government. 9. In the light of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the third respondent-LAO is required to take into consideration all these aspects while determining the compensation, if the same is not already determined, and if the construction is made legally prior to the preliminary notification. Further, if there is no consent arrived at by the parties, the Land Acquisition Officer has to refer the matter for adjudication of title and/or apportionment of the compensation, in accordance with law. 10. These petitions are accordingly disposed of in terms of the order passed hereinabove. 11. Further, if there is no consent arrived at by the parties, the Land Acquisition Officer has to refer the matter for adjudication of title and/or apportionment of the compensation, in accordance with law. 10. These petitions are accordingly disposed of in terms of the order passed hereinabove. 11. As noticed earlier, the claim of the petitioners shall be restricted to a portion of Sy.No.135/2 in which he has leasehold rights. With respect to the remaining portion of Sy.No.135/2 and Sy.No.135/1, the petitioners will have no claim and respondent No.6 along with her husband is entitled to seek compensation from the acquiring body, in accordance with law. I.A.No.1/2020 does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of accordingly.