ORDER : 1. Since both the writ petitions arise out of the same highway project, involve the same petitioner, substantially common questions of fact and law and relate to the utilisation of the petitioner's land for formation and widening of the Bangalore Mysore Highway (SH-17/NH- 275), they are taken up together, heard and are disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner in WP 32062/2018 seeks for the following prayers : a. Issue a Writ of Mandamus, similar Writ, Order or Direction and declare that the acquisition proceedings as at Annexure G dated 03.03.2005 bearing Reference No.KA/SK/MYS-65/03-05 has since lapsed and consequently direct the restoration of the possession of the Schedule Property being the lands in Sy.No.14, of Bommuru Agrahara Village, Belagola Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District; to the Petitioner forthwith; or in the alternative. b. Issue a Writ of Mandamus, similar Writ, Order or Direction directing the Respondent No.1 to issue a fresh Notification for the acquisition of the Schedule Property of the Petitioner in an extent of 07 Guntas contained in Sy.No.14, of Bommuru Agrahara Village, Belagola Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District and to effect payment of compensation in accordance with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. c. Issue a Writ of Mandamus, similar Writ, Order or Direction and direct the Respondent No.2 to pay damages to the Petitioner at the rate of 10% of the market value of the land per annum from the year 2006 till date of payment for the unlawful and unconstitutional utilization of the Petitioner's land without authority of law and consequently depriving the Petitioner the benefits of the land. d. Pass an order as to the costs of present Writ Petition; and e. Pass such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case, including an order as to costs, in the interest of justice and equity. 3. d. Pass an order as to the costs of present Writ Petition; and e. Pass such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case, including an order as to costs, in the interest of justice and equity. 3. In WP 34351/2016 seeks for the following prayers: ” (a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus, similar Writ, Order or Direction and direct the Respondent No.1 to issue a Notification for the acquisition of the Schedule Property of the Petitioner in an extent of 27 Guntas contained in Sy.No.16, of Bommuru Agrahara Village, Belagola Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District, (Schedule Property) and pass an award in accordance with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Or in the alternative. (b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus, similar Writ, Order or Direction directing the restoration of the possession by the Respondents to the Petitioner the Schedule Property being an extent of 27 Guntas of land contained in Sy.No.16, of Bommuru Agrahara Village, Belagola Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District; (c) Issue a Writ of Certiorari, similar Writ, Order or Direction and quash Respondent No.2's decisions in the said Minutes of Meetings dated 05.05.2015 (Annexure Y); bearing No.KRDCL/P10/RT1/2015-16/1845. (d) Issue a Writ of Certiorari, similar Writ, Order or Direction and quash Respondent No.2's decisions in the said Minutes of Meetings dated 17.05.2016 (Annexure AE); bearing No.KRANN/BHU.SVA/C.R.13/2016-17/608. (e) Issue a Writ of Mandamus, similar Writ, Order or Direction and direct the Respondent No.2 to pay damages to the Petitioner at the rate of 10% of the market value of the land per annum from the year 2006 till date of payment for the unlawful and unconstitutional utilization of the Petitioner's land without authority of law and consequently depriving the Petitioner the benefits of the land. (f) Pass an order as to the costs of present Writ Petition. (g) Pass such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case, including an order as to costs, in the interest of justice and equity. 4. The petitioner has approached this Court complaining of deprivation of property without lawful payment of compensation. (g) Pass such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case, including an order as to costs, in the interest of justice and equity. 4. The petitioner has approached this Court complaining of deprivation of property without lawful payment of compensation. In WP No. 32062/2018, the dispute relates to 07 guntas in Survey No. 14, whereas in WP No. 34351/2016, the dispute relates to land in Survey No. 16, admittedly utilised to some extent for the highway project. The petitioner seeks a declaration of lapse or in the alternative, payment of compensation in accordance with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (‘Act, 2013’ for short). BRIEF FACTS 5. The lands in Survey Nos. 14 and 16 of Bommuur Agrahara Village, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District, originally stood granted under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act, 1961’) and was subsequently purchased by the petitioner's father under registered sale deed. After the purchase, the lands were converted from agriculture to non-agriculture/commercial use under the orders passed by the competent authority. The conversion orders remained in force, revenue entries were mutated and property taxes were paid. During the execution of the project for widening and formation of SH 17 NH-275, portions of the petitioner's land were physically taken over and utilized for road formation, medians, footpaths and allied infrastructure. 6. In W.P.32062/2018 (Survey No. 14) the respondents assert that the acquisition proceedings were initiated and that an award was passed. It is their case that the compensation amount was deposited with the Assistant Commissioner/Special Land Acquisition Officer. However, it is not in dispute that the said amount was never tendered or paid to the petitioner, nor deposited before the jurisdictional Civil Court. 7. In WP 34351/2016 (Survey No. 16) the respondents have admitted utilisation of the petitioner's land, though disputing the extent utilised. It is also not in dispute that no compensation has been paid or tendered to the petitioner till date. Upon the petitioner’s representation, the revenue authorities conducted a spot inspection and survey of the land in question. 7. In WP 34351/2016 (Survey No. 16) the respondents have admitted utilisation of the petitioner's land, though disputing the extent utilised. It is also not in dispute that no compensation has been paid or tendered to the petitioner till date. Upon the petitioner’s representation, the revenue authorities conducted a spot inspection and survey of the land in question. The survey and the inspection reports, prepared by the Tahsildar and other revenue officials, categorically recorded that a portion of land in Survey No. 16 had been utilized for the formation of Bangalore-Mysore Highway, and that no notification under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘the Act, 1894’ for short) has been issued in respect of the said utilized portion. Based on the said inspection, the Assistant Commissioner addressed a communication to the Karnataka Road Development Corporation Ltd stating that land in Survey No. 16 had been utilized for the road without acquisition proceedings, and calling upon the acquiring body to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. Instead of initiating acquisition proceedings and paying compensation, the records disclose that the correspondence ensued proposing to treat the land as agricultural and further recommending cancellation of the conversion order granted in favour of the petitioner. Despite repeated representations, no compensation was paid. Hence, these writ petitions. 8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the material on record. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the lands in Survey Nos. 14 and 16 and the respondents have utilised the lands for a public purpose without discharging their statutory obligation to pay compensation. It is contended that deposit of compensation with the Assistant Commissioner/SLAO does not amount to ‘payment’ under Section 31 of the Act, 1894 and as held by the Apex Court in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Others , (2020) 8 SCC 129 (Indore Development Authority). It is further contended the continued retention and utilisation of the petitioner's land without payment of compensation is violative of Article 300A of the Constitution. It is further submitted that since compensation was not paid or tendered as on 01.01.2014, she is entitled for re- determination of compensation under the Act, 2013 even if the acquisition itself does not lapse. 10. It is further submitted that since compensation was not paid or tendered as on 01.01.2014, she is entitled for re- determination of compensation under the Act, 2013 even if the acquisition itself does not lapse. 10. In so far as WP 34351/2016, reliance is placed on the conversion conditions and that the attempts to cancel the conversion retrospectively are arbitrary and contrary to the decision of this Court in the case of Mallikarjun Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Hubli vs State of Karnataka and Others , 1995 SCC Online Kar 220 (Mallikarjun Co- operative Housing Society Ltd. ) and contends that where the land is converted for non-agricultural purpose cannot be treated as an agricultural land in the absence of any order withdrawing the demand or cancelling the permission granted under Section 95 sub-clause (2) of the Land Revenue Act, 1964 )’the Act, 1964). 11. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the lands have been taken for public purpose, possession has been taken and the project has been completed. Once the possession is taken, no lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013, Act. It is submitted that in W.P. 32062/2018 an award exists and the compensation was deposited with the revenue authority and in W.P.34351/2016, the extent utilised is disputed. Further it is contended that the petition suffers from delay and latches. 12. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the points that arise for consideration are: (i) Whether the acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013? (ii) Whether the deposit with the Assistant Commissioner/SLAO amounts to payment? (iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation under the Act, 2013? FINDINGS AND REASONS 13. It is an admitted position that the physical possession of the land has been taken and the lands are being utilized for completed highway project. In view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority (supra), lapse under Section 24(2) arises only when both possession has not been taken and compensation has not been paid. Since the possession has been taken, the prayer seeking declaration of lapse is liable to be rejected. 14. Section 31 of the Act, 1894 mandates that the compensation must be tendered to the landlord and only in contingencies under Section 31 sub-clause (2) it can be deposited before the Civil Court. Since the possession has been taken, the prayer seeking declaration of lapse is liable to be rejected. 14. Section 31 of the Act, 1894 mandates that the compensation must be tendered to the landlord and only in contingencies under Section 31 sub-clause (2) it can be deposited before the Civil Court. Deposit with the Assistant Commissioner/SLAO does not amount to payment in the eye of law. However, the respondents have failed to place any material to show that the compensation was tendered to the petitioner or deposited before the Civil Court. Therefore, it must be held that the compensation has not been paid in the eye of law. The Apex Court in the case of Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz and Others Vs. Government of Karnataka and Others , 2025 SCC Online SC 20 (Bernard Francis) has held that inordinate delay in paying the compensation and thereby depriving the Constitutional right to the appellants under Article 300A, the land acquisition proceedings are quashed. The only recourse available to the KIADB in order to save the project will be to now issue a fresh acquisition notification by invoking provisions as applicable under the Act, 2013 which would entail huge expenditure to the public exchequer and therefore the Apex Court in Bernard Francies (supra) held that in the interest of justice, the SLAO was directed to determine compensation to be awarded to the appellants therein on the basis of the market value prevailing as on 22.04.2019. 15. Insofar as the issue of conversion of land is concerned, the contention of the respondents that the land in Survey No. 16 could be treated as an agricultural land on basis of the internal correspondence or proposal is wholly untenable. The petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this Court reported in Mallikarjun Cooperative Housing Society Ltd (supra) wherein it has been categorically held that once an order of conversion is granted by the competent authority, the land ceases to be agricultural, and unless and until such conversion order is withdrawn or cancelled by a competent authority in accordance with law, the land cannot be treated as agriculture for any purpose whatsoever. 16. In the present case, it is not the case of the respondent that the conversion order granted in favour of the petitioner has been withdrawn or cancelled by the competent authority by following due process of law. 16. In the present case, it is not the case of the respondent that the conversion order granted in favour of the petitioner has been withdrawn or cancelled by the competent authority by following due process of law. Mere correspondence, proposals or recommendations whether emanating from the acquiring body or even from the revenue authorities, do not have the effect of nullifying a valid conversion order. Consequently, the attempt on the part of the respondents to recategorize the converted land as an agricultural, with a view to reduce or deny compensation is impermissible in law. The land must be treated as a converted/non agricultural land as on the date of utilisation, and the compensation shall be determined accordingly under the Act, 2013. 17. Continued retention of the petitioner's land without payment of such compensation would offend Article 300A of the Constitution. Accordingly, the points framed for consideration are answered and this Court pass the following: ORDER: (i) The writ petitions are allowed in part. (ii) The prayers seeking declaration of lapse of the acquisition proceeding under Section 24 (2) of the Act, 2013 are rejected. (iii) It is declared that the deposit of compensation with Assistant Commissioner/Special Land Acquisition Officer does not amount to payment in law. (iv) The petitioner is held entitled for determination of payment of compensation on basis of prevailing market value, for the land utilized for the highway project in both the writ petitions, to be computed by applying Sections 26 to 30 of Act, 2013 including all statutory components in terms of Bernard Francies Joseph’s decision stated supra after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pay the same within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.