ORDER : 1. The petitioners are challenging the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on the ground that the award ought to have been passed under the 2013 Act and not under the 1894 Act. 2. It is not in dispute that the lands in question were notified after 2013 Act came into force. It is also not in dispute that by Act No.20 of 2022, Section 30 of the KIADB Act has been substituted and provisions of the 2013 Act are deemed to be a part of KIADB Act as if they were reenacted under the body of the Act. 3. This Court in WP No.108802/2016, WP No.100034/2017 and WP No.102957/2021 has already held that in respect of the lands which have been acquired and where awards have not been passed as on 01.01.2014, necessarily the awards would have to be passed under the 2013 Act. 4. In the instant case, as noticed above, the notification itself has been issued after the 2013 Act came into force and having regard to the above mentioned judgments and also the amendment brought about to Section 30 of the KIADB, the impugned award passed under the 1894 Act cannot be sustained and the same is quashed. 5. Sri.Veeresh Budihal, learned counsel however contends that the order passed in WP No.108802/2016, WP No.100034/2017 and WP No.102957/2021 has been stayed by the Division Bench and therefore the prayer of the petitioners cannot be granted. 6. It is stated here that mere staying of the judgment would not preclude the Court from following the dictum laid down therein. In that view of the matter, the submission of the learned counsel is overruled. 7. The writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pass appropriate order in terms of the 2013 Act within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.