ORDER : (Krishna S. Dixit, J.) Petitioner claiming to be the owner of the subject property on the basis of Assistant Commissioner's order in RTS Appeal, disposed off on 30.06.2017 is knocking at the doors of Writ Court complaining against the acquisition of the subject property essentially on the ground that she being the true owner of the property herself, the Notifications issued in the name of some one else are illegal and at least, compensation ought to have been given to her. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that right to property having been constitutionally guaranteed under Article 300A, taking property without paying compensation is not justifiable in the light of decision of the Apex Court in K.T Plantation v. State of Karnataka (2011) 9 SCC 1 . 2. Learned AGA appearing for the Respondent - State and the learned Sr. Panel Counsel appearing for the Respondent - KIADB oppose the Petition contending that the acquisition is of the year 2008; the Statutory Notifications were issued in the name of khathedar who is not the Petitioner; the award passed on 24.12.2011 and compensation in all, a sum of Rs.53,60,000/- has already been paid to the khathedars account; possession has been taken over on 27.07.2010; in fact, Petitioner's Civil Suit in O.S.No.572/2015 challenging the acquisition has also been dismissed on 19.10.2022. Therefore, they seek dismissal of the Writ Petition. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with submission made on behalf of the Respondents, more particularly in the light of certain observations made by the Trial Judge in the subject suit. In both the Preliminary Notification dated 29.01.2008 issued under Section 28(1) of the 1966 Act and Final Notification dated 27.05.2010 issue under Section 28(4), Petitioner's name did not figure as khathedar in the Property Records, even thereafter i.e., at the time of passing the award, taking of possession and making payment of compensation too, Petitioner's name did not figure in the Property Records. In fact, she had filed an RTS Appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 only in April 2014 which came to be favoured by the Assistant Commissioner on 30.06.2017 on the basis of which for the first time Petitioner's name gained entry to the Property Records. In fact, she had filed an RTS Appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 only in April 2014 which came to be favoured by the Assistant Commissioner on 30.06.2017 on the basis of which for the first time Petitioner's name gained entry to the Property Records. That being the position, the acquisition process cannot be faltered even in the least. 4. Learned Panel Counsel appearing for the KIADB is more than justified in contending that there is absolutely no allegation of fraud fabrication or duplicity or the like against his client for whose benefit acquisition of property has been accomplished under the provisions of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 and therefore, there is no cause of action against his client. The fraud arguably is against the khatedars or the persons who have received the compensation claiming to be the owner of the subject property and therefore, Petitioner should proceed against such other persons and not against the State or the KIADB at all. 5. The vehement submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner that even to this day his clients continues to be in the possession of the subject property is bit difficult to countenance especially when the admitted position is that the acquisition has been accomplished. There is some observation in the judgment of the Trial Judge which denied relief to the Petitioner in her suit in O.S.No.572/2015 as to the possession having been taken by the KIADB. This Court cannot readily re-examine whether Petitioner is in possession or the KIADB has taken the possession since there is already some finding in that regard. In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed off reserving liberty to the Petitioner to proceed against those who have perpetrated fraud or such other actionable grounds by filing an appropriate suit in accordance with law. It hardly needs to be stated that the period spent in prosecuting the suit and also this writ petition is liable to be discounted while computing the period of limitation for instating the suit of the kind. In that regard, all other contentions are kept open. Registry to send a copy of this judgment to all the private Respondents by Speed Post, forthwith. Now, no costs.