ORDER : (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following reliefs: IN W.P.NO.103883/2018 i) Issue writ in nature of certiorari quashing the order passed by the respondent no.2 vide order bearing no. No.1065 dated:18.01.2018 vide annexure-e with respect to the petitioners. ii) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to pass award in respect of the lands of the petitioners in accordance with law. iii) And also grant such any such any other Writ or Order as deems fit this Hon’ble court in the interest of Justice and equity. IN W.P.NO.101726/2021 i) Issue writ of certiorari or any other writ or order quashing the communication of the order vide letter no.LAQ/VNV/ Simikeri/20- 21/ 204/2 dated 30.07.2020 issued by the Special Land Acquisition officer, UKP (the Respondent no.3), Bagalkot (Annexure-S). ii) Acquire the land of the petitioner Veerayya @ Irayya S/O Adrushayya Pujari, bearing RS.No.248/17/ P-1 (RS.No.248/17 shown at sl.no.130 of the list of acquisition of lands, Notified U/sec. 4(1) for Acquisition in LAQ/SR/33/ 1997-98 Equated in 248/8) measuring 4a-00gs of Simikeri village, Tal and Dist Bagalkot. iii) To pass Special or Supplementary award for just and fair compensation amount, payable to the petitioner, towards acquisition and taking possession of the land bearing RS.No.248/17/ p-1 (RS.No.248/17 measuring 4a-00gs, mentioned at SL.No.130 of the list of lands notified for acquisition U/Sec. 4(1) of the act) measuring 4a-00GS of Simikeri Village, Tal and Dist. Bagalkot, relying on and considering the mutation entries, record of rights of the land bearing RS.no.248/17/0-1 measuring 4a-00gs of Simikeri village, P.T. sheet Annexure-K dated 02/08/2008 prepared by the Tahasildar Bagalkot (Respondent no.5) and pertinently, the supplementary award prepared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, UKP, Bagalkot and submitted to the General Manager, land acquisition officer, UKP, Bagalkot, under No.LAQ/SR/ 33/1997-98 dated 18/03/2015 and 08/05/2015 (Annexure-P). iv) Grant such other reliefs this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, in the circumstance of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. The petitioners claim to be the owners of land bearing Sy. Nos. 248/8B, 248/8C and 248/17 (new R.S. No.248/17/P-1), measuring 4 acres, 2 acres and 4 acres respectively in Simikeri Village, Bagalkot Taluk. iv) Grant such other reliefs this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, in the circumstance of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. The petitioners claim to be the owners of land bearing Sy. Nos. 248/8B, 248/8C and 248/17 (new R.S. No.248/17/P-1), measuring 4 acres, 2 acres and 4 acres respectively in Simikeri Village, Bagalkot Taluk. For the purpose of construction of a rehabilitation center for the beneficiary - Karnataka Bhagya Jal Nigam Limited, the government issues a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘Act’ for shot) and later a final notification under Section 6(1) of the Act. The contention of the petitioners is that no award is passed in the cases of the acquisition of the land of the petitioners. Therefore, they are before this Court after knocking at the doors of the State repeatedly for passing an award and for grant of compensation, as the land of the petitioners has been utilized or locked between the rehabilitation center that is now established. 3. The learned counsel Sri. Prashant S. Kadadevar takes this Court through a document dated 18.01.2018, which captures the entire acquisition process initiated of the subject lands and the surrounding lands. The learned counsel submits that, though the Sy. Nos.248/8B, 248/8C totally measuring 6 acres and 248/17 (new R.S. No.248/17/P-1) measuring 4 acres, became subject matter in the acquisition, the award is not passed in the case at hand. 4. Per contra, the learned AGA on the strength of records or by issuing a notification under Section 16(2) of the Act would seek to contend that the lands of the petitioners have not been taken possession of and therefore, there can be no question of passing an award or granting compensation to these persons. The learned counsel would seek dismissal of the petitions. 5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record. The entire issue in the lis revolves around the order dated 18.01.2018. Therefore, it becomes necessary to quote the same. 7. The lands of the petitioners, in Sy. Nos. 248/8B and 248/8C are mentioned at Sl. Nos. 6. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record. The entire issue in the lis revolves around the order dated 18.01.2018. Therefore, it becomes necessary to quote the same. 7. The lands of the petitioners, in Sy. Nos. 248/8B and 248/8C are mentioned at Sl. Nos. 2 and 3 of the chart found in the order, and at the end of the order or the communication as the case would be, it is clearly indicated that the rehabilitation center is already established and for the lands of the petitioners, there is some discrepancy with regard to the akarband. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all necessary documents are submitted to the respondents for the purpose of passing an award by grant of compensation, as even in terms of the order quoted supra, the land of the petitioners have been utilized. 8. A perusal at the order quoted hereinabove, is indicative of the fact that the lands of the petitioners have been utilized or it is locked inside the rehabilitation center. Either ways, the land loser will have to get compensation. If the land is not with the petitioners and if it is not with the State, it would be with the beneficiary in the rehabilitation center that is established. The State after having issued a notification under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Act and also having allegedly taken possession of the subject lands, cannot now contend that the petitioners are not entitled to compensation or otherwise. 9. The order quoted supra is incongruous, as the preamble of the order indicates that if all the documents are submitted by the petitioners, an award could be passed by grant of compensation, but the order finally denies the said relief. In the light of the said contradictory stand, it becomes necessary for the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioners strictly in consonance with what the order itself observes, that the rehabilitation center is already in place and the lands of the petitioners have been utilized for the same. 10. In that light, the petitions deserve to succeed albeit in part. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The petitions are allowed in part. (ii) The impugned orders dated 18.01.2018 and 30.07.2020 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer stands quashed. 10. In that light, the petitions deserve to succeed albeit in part. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The petitions are allowed in part. (ii) The impugned orders dated 18.01.2018 and 30.07.2020 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer stands quashed. (iii) The mandamus issues to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for passing an award, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order within an outer limit of 3 months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Ordered accordingly.