JUDGMENT Jyoti Mulimani, J. - Heard Sri.Srihari.A.V., learned counsel for petitioners, Sri.P.V.Chandrashekar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri.K.Krishna, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Sri.Rohan Hosmath, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6. 2. Petitioners have challenged the General Award dated 03.01.2020 passed by respondent No.2 under Section 29(3) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short 'KIAD Act'), relating to the schedule property of the petitioners as under: Item No.1: All that piece and parcel of immovable property bearing No.65, Khata No.919/287/565A, Sy.No.139 of Nagavara Village, Bangalore North Taluk measuring East to West:60 Ft. and North to South: 40 Ft. and bounded on the: East by: 30 Ft. wide Road West by: Private Property North by: Remaining Portion of same Property South by: Property No.64 Item No.2: All that piece and parcel of immovable property bearing No.65, Khata No.919/288/565A, Sy.No.139 of Nagavara Village, Bangalore North Taluk measuring East- West: 60 Ft. and North-South: 40 Ft. and bounded on the: East by: 30 Feet Wide Road West by: Private Property North by: Property No.66 South by: Remaining Portion of same Property 3. In identical circumstances, this Court in W.P.No.6198/2015 disposed of on 25.8.2015, has held as under: "Petitioner is assailing the General Award dated 30th December 2013, Annexure- A, of the 3rd respondent-Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (for short 'KIADB') insofar as it relates to 1 acre 39 guntas in Sy.No.444 of Cheeluru village, Maralavadi Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District, on the premise that her claim for determination of compensation ought to be by way of an agreement under Sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short 'KIAD Act') since willing to enter into an agreement after having obtained a compromise decree dated 6.12.2014 in O.S.126/2013 whereunder the property in question is declared to be the absolute property of the petitioner. 2. Sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the 'KIAD Act' provides for determination of compensation by an agreement and in the light of the compromise decree whereunder, the property in question has fallen to the exclusive share of the petitioner, is entitled to such a consideration, since it is stated that by such an agreement, petitioner would be entitled to a better price as compensation instead of determination under a general award, while acquisition proceeding would attain a finality disentitling petitioner to challenge the same in this petition. In the circumstances, there is a need to interfere with General Award Annexure-A insofar as it relates to petitioner's land. 3. In the result, this petition is allowed. General Award Annexure-A insofar as it relates to petitioner is concerned is quashed. A direction shall ensue to respondent-KIADB to consider the case of the petitioner for determination of compensation by way of an agreement under Section 29(2) of the 'KIAD Act' to be complied with as expeditiously as possible within an outer limit of 31st October 2015. It is made clear that this order is applicable only if there is no dispute to title in the immovable property acquired and if there is one, the General Award in respect of petitioner is concerned shall stand restored until the dispute is resolved." 4. For the reasons stated in the aforesaid order, the General Award at Annexure 'A' dated 03.01.2020 in respect of survey numbers aforementioned is hereby quashed. 5. Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the case of petitioners for determination of compensation in terms of Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act, keeping in mind the order referred to above. 6. Compliance within eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Respondent No.2 is permitted to withdraw the amount in deposit, if any, in the Civil Court. It is also hereby directed that petitioners and respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6 to appear before respondent No.2 on 28.09.2020. 7. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.