ORDER : 1. The petitioner in this writ petition calls in question the order dated 13.01.2017 passed by the respondent No. 2 and the consequential intimation letter dated 29.12.2017 again by the respondent No. 2. 2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present petition are that the petitioner came in possession of the land measuring 1 acre in Sy. No. 129/1/1B situated at Mahal Bagayath village, taluk and district Vijayapur. Having purchased it from one Yunus by way of registered sale deed dated 25.06.2009. Being in possession of the land, the petitioner applied for conversion of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose on 30.10.2012 and after due verification, the competent authority accorded permission for conversion of the land from the agricultural to non-agricultural purpose on 22.12.2014. The petitioner again applied for approval of layout. On 22.12.2014, the petitioner applied for conversion of her land for the purpose of formation of layout which was permitted by an order of the Deputy Commissioner. During the subsistence of the aforesaid proceedings and the construction of a layout on 12.04.2016, the respondent No. 2 initiated acquisition proceedings to acquire the land for the purpose of formation of a four lane road and issued notification under subsection 1 of section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. 3. After obtaining the opinion and recommendations for disbursement of compensation from the hands of respondent No. 1, the compensation was to be disbursed by the respondent No. 2 in favour of the petitioner, in terms of the award notice dated 30.01.2016. Despite the petitioner submitting all the documents, no compensation was paid in terms of the award notice by the respondent No. 2, which drove the petitioner to this Court in writ petition No. 200013/2017. This Court by an order dated 16.11.2017 disposed the writ petition by the following order: 6. In view of the submission by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition could be disposed of with the following directions: (a) 2nd respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for release of amounts in terms of the order passed by this Court. (b) The petitioner shall submit a representation and therewith enclose certified copies of 15 documents detailed in the award notice. (b) The petitioner shall submit a representation and therewith enclose certified copies of 15 documents detailed in the award notice. (c) 2nd respondent shall within 15 days from the date of receipt of the representation consider and release the award amount in the alternative, if the 2nd respondent is of the opinion that the documents do not demonstrate the title of the petitioner, he shall intimate the same to the petitioner by a written communication. The said communication shall be issued within a stipulated period of 15 days. Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms.” 4. This Court in terms of the order supra reserved liberty to the respondents to obtain opinion with regard to documents of the petitioner to regarding her title and if it is in dispute, or the title of the petitioner is in doubt, the amount will not be released in favour of the petitioner. 5. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the respondent No. 2 issued notice to the petitioner that the amount concerning acquisition of 120 sq. meters would not be released in favour of the petitioner as no documents are produced before them, in terms of the order passed by this Court. The petitioner gave a reply on 21.12.2017 enclosing all the documents that were in her possession for seeking compensation insofar as it concerns to 120 square meters of the acquired land by the respondent No. 2. 6. In spite of such submission, order dated 29.12.2017 passed by the respondent No. 2 on the ground that the petitioner has not surrendered the land towards buffer zone as was required. It is this order that has called in question before this Court by the petitioner. 7. Heard Smt. Ratna N. Shivayogimath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. S.S. Halalli, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Sri. Shivakumar R. Tengli, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No. 2. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order impugned in the petition are passed on an erroneous presumption that the petitioner has not relinquished necessary lands towards civic amenities to the tune of 2868 sq. meters as shown in the approved plan and it is for this reason that the respondent No. 2 withheld the amount as indicated in the notice dated 29.12.2017. 9. meters as shown in the approved plan and it is for this reason that the respondent No. 2 withheld the amount as indicated in the notice dated 29.12.2017. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 would submit that on due verification, it is found that the petitioner has not surrendered the land as is indicated for civic amenities in terms of the approved plan and therefore, they are justified in withholding the amount. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 Sri. S.S. Halalli, would support the petitioner as they had issued no objection for grant of compensation in favour of the petitioner on 13.01.2016. 10. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the records. 11. The issue involved in the writ petition is with regard to whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for 120 sq. meters that was acquired by the respondent No. 2 National Highway Authority for formation of 4 lane road. 12. The only objection of the respondent No. 2 is with regard to the petitioner not leaving space for civic amenities as per the approved plan. The petitioner in the writ petition has narrated space left for civic amenities at paragraph 6 which reads as follows: “As per the layout plan, total area is 4047 sq. mtrs. out of which: (1) 2868 sq. mtrs. is for commercial purpose. (2) 202 sq. mtrs. is for parking. (3) 407 sq. mtrs is for open space. (4) For road 571 sq. mtrs. as stated above.” 13. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 would contend that the area of 120 sq. meters which was acquired was a part of 571 sq. meters which was to be left in the approved plan. Therefore, no compensation is payable by the respondent No. 2 for acquiring a public road. 14. It is to be noticed that pursuant to the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondent No. 2, the first respondent gave a no objection after complete verification of the records with regard to surrender of the petitioner as required in law, in terms of the approved plan, this resulted in an award notice dated 13.01.2016 acquiring 120 sq. meters of the land belonging to the petitioner and determining of compensation of Rs. 9,83,666/-. meters of the land belonging to the petitioner and determining of compensation of Rs. 9,83,666/-. It is after issuance of award notice when the compensation was not paid, the petitioner approached this Court in the aforesaid writ petition. Though the order in the writ petition was with regard to demonstration of title of the petitioner and that having been confirmed, a new plea was put up by the respondent No. 2 that the acquisition of 120 sq. meters of the land belonging to the petitioner formed part of a public road which also forms a part of 571 sq. meters. 15. This objection of respondent No. 2 is wholly untenable and contrary to the facts narrated, as once award notice is issued and compensation determined all the documents submitted as per the orders of the Court were accepted, respondent No. 2 could not have denied compensation. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed. 17. The order dated 13.01.2017 passed by the respondent No. 2 and the consequential intimation letter dated 29.12.2017 issued by the respondent No. 2 are quashed. Respondents are directed to reconsider the issue in terms of the award notice dated 13.01.2016 within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.