JUDGMENT : This intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 07.10.2017 passed by learned Single Judge, by which the writ petition preferred by the respondents 2 and 3 (hereinafter referred to as 'the land owners' for short) has been allowed and the Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the Authority' for short) has been directed to grant equal extent of land measuring 22 guntas of similar value having similar potentiality in the nearby locality or to pay compensation in respect of land alleging the same to have been acquired under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency Under The Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2013 Act' for short). 2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the respondents No.2 and 3 are the owners of land measuring 22 guntas of land of Sy.No.90/4 situated in Valagerahalli Village, Bangalore South (hereinafter referred to as 'the schedule land' for short). The authority was in need of several other lands including the schedule land for formation of a layout viz., 'Gnana bharathi Layout'. Thereupon the process of acquisition of land under the Bangalore Development authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) was set in motion. A preliminary notification dated 26.01.1989 was issued. The land owners filed an objection to the said preliminary notification,. However, a final notification under Section 19(1) of the Act was issue don 19.01.1994. It is the case of the Authority that an award was passed on 23.03.1996 by which compensation payable to the land was determined. It is also the case of the authority that the possession of the land in question was taken over on 20.04.1996. However, the compensation was not paid to the land owners. Thereupon the land owners filed a petition seeking a direction to the respondents either to pay compensation together with solatium in terms of 2013 Act or in the alternative to allot the land of similar value having similar potentiality in a nearby locality. The Learned Single Judge by an order dated 06.10.2017 inter alia held that the action of the authority in unilaterally depositing the amount of compensation before the civil court is not justified. The Learned Single Judge by an order dated 06.10.2017 inter alia held that the action of the authority in unilaterally depositing the amount of compensation before the civil court is not justified. It was further held that no notice under section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act' for short) was issued to the land owners. The Learned Single Judge therefore, concluded that the right of land owners guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India has been infringed. The Learned Single Judge has therefore, directed the authority to grant equal extent of land measuring 22 guntas of similar value and similar potentiality in a nearby locality or to pay the amount of compensation under 2013 Act. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the Authority while referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Bangalore Development Authority v. State Of Karnataka And Others', 2022 SCC Online SC 69 submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated the provisions of 2013 Act have no application to the acquisition proceeding initiated under the provisions 1976 Act and therefore, the learned Single Judge erred in directing the appellants to pay compensation in respect of the schedule land under the 2013 Act. It is however, fairly submitted that the land held by the land owners has been utilized by the authority. 4. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant as well as the submission made by learned Additional Government Advocate and have perused the record. There is no material on record to indicate that any notice under Section 12(2) of the 1894 Act was issued or was served on the land owners. The action of the authority in unilaterally depositing the amount of compensation interest on the aforesaid amount on 20.12.2009 without complying the mandate contained in Section 31 of the 1894 Act is also rightly been held to be not justified by the learned Single Judge. The action of the authority in utilizing the land held by the land owners and in not making payment of compensation to the owners of the land constitutes an infringement of constitutional right guaranteed to the owners of the land under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. The action of the authority in utilizing the land held by the land owners and in not making payment of compensation to the owners of the land constitutes an infringement of constitutional right guaranteed to the owners of the land under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bangalore Development Authority And Another supra in para 24 has held as under: 24. In view of the above, the Learned Judge of the High Court in Sri. Sudhakar Hegde (supra) was not justified in holding that the provisions of LA Act that are made applicable to the BDA Act are in the nature of legislation by reference. The learned Judge has also erred in holding that in view of the repeal of LA Act by coming into force of 2013 Act, the corresponding provisions of 2013 Act would regulate acquisition proceedings under the BDA Act and that this would include determination of compensation in accordance with 2013 Act. It is hereby clarified that since LA Act has been incorporated in to the BDA Act so far as they are applicable the provisions of 2013 Act are not applicable for the acquisitions made under the BDA Act. Therefore, the judgment of the learned single Judge of the High Court in Sri Sudhakr Hegde (supra) and other connected matters is hereby overruled. Thus, it is evident that the provisions of 2013 Act have no application to the proceedings initiated for acquisition of the land under the 1976 Act. 5. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the learned Single Judge erred in directing the Authority to make payment of compensation in respect of the schedule land treating the same to have been acquired under 2013 Act. The direction contained in the impugned order to pay compensation in terms of 2013 Act is set aside. The authority is directed to tender the amount of compensation to the owners of land along with interest and solatium as well as the amount admissible under other statutory heads under 1894 Act to the owners of the land within a period of two weeks from today failing, which the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest as per Section 34 of 1894 Act. To the aforesaid extent, the order passed by learned Single Judge is modified. In the result, the appeal is disposed of.