ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed seeking following reliefs: (i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order Quashing notification bearing No. CI255SPQ2001(P) dated 9.2.2004 under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act, ANNEXURE B and final notification No.CI:126:SPQ: 2005 dated 19.12.2005 under Section 28(4) of KIAD Act ANNEXURE-D. (ii) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order quashing allotment letter bearing No. IADB/HO/Allot/Secy/1540-SUC/16093/ 14-15 dated 10.3.2015 ANNEXURE-Q and the possession certificate bearing No. IADB/DO/-2/2336/2015-16 dated 25.1.2016 and consequently direct the Respondent 2 to 4 to hand over possession of item No. 1,2,and 4 of the scheduled properties and direct respondent 2 and 3 to hand over possession of item No. 3 of schedule property. (ii)(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order Quashing General Award dated 05.02.2018 and dated 22.08.2023 Annexure T and U passed by the respondent No.3. (iii) Grant such other and further relief as just in the interest of justice. 2. Necessary to note that though the Petitioners originally filed the above writ petition seeking quash of preliminary notification dated 09.02.2004 and the final Notification dated 19.12.2005 as per prayer (i) and (ii) subsequently by an amendment which was allowed on 04.02.2025, the Petitioners have sought quashing of the General Award dated 05.02.2018 and dated 22.08.2023 Annexures T and U passed by the respondent No.3. After addressing the arguments a Memo dated 03.04.2025 is filed on behalf of the Petitioners stating that the petitioners would restrict their prayer challenging the amount of compensation awarded to the petitioners and would not seek to press the prayers challenging the acquisition. The said memo is taken on record and consequently matter is being adjudicated only to the extent of relief No. (ii)(a). 3. Case of the petitioners is that: (a) One Sri C. Sridharan was the absolute owner of the property bearing survey number 117/2 measuring 31 guntas, survey number 117/3 measuring 33 guntas, survey number 116 measuring 35 guntas and survey number 117/3 measuring 18.5 gundas, totally measuring 2 acres and 37.5 guntas situated at Amani Bellanduru Khane Village, Vartur Hobli, Bangalore, East Taluk, described more fully in the schedule to the writ petition as item numbers 1 to 4 ( hereinafter referred to “Schedule Property”). That item Nos.3 and 4 of the schedule property were converted from agriculture to non-agricultural residential purposes as per the order dated 18.11.1999. (b) That the respondent No.1 had issued a notification dated 10.12.2001 under Section 3 (1) of Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 , (hereinafter referred to as KIAD Act), declaring the schedule property as industrial area. Respondent No.1 thereafter issued a preliminary notification dated 09.02.2004, under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act. Said Sri C Sridharan had submitted his objection on 25.05.2004 opposing acquisition, contending that he had purchased the schedule property for the commercial purposes of establishment of software technology park and had requested to drop the schedule property from acquisition proceedings. That without providing any opportunity the respondent No.1 had issued final notification under Section 28(4) of KIAD Act on 19.12.2005 in which the schedule property of the petitioners is shown at serial number 32, 34 and 35 of the notification. No notice has been issued to Sri C Sridharan asking him to hand over the possession of the schedule property, though the respondent No.3 claimed to have taken possession of the land. (c) That respondent No.3 issued a notice dated 17.01.2007 under Section 29(2) offering to pay a sum of Rs. 65 lakhs per acre as compensation and called upon the owner to submit the records and give consent for acquisition by agreement if he was interested. In response to said notice, Sri C Sridharan had submitted his reply stating that he was not consenting for acquisition and had made it clear that the lands were converted and the market value of the said land at the time of issuance of the preliminary notification was about Rs.4.00 crores per acre and he had further requested that if the respondents still intended to go ahead for acquisition, the same had to be referred for adjudication for determination of appropriate amount of compensation. (d) That said Sri C Sridharan passed away on 19.10.2007 bequeathing item number 1 and 2 of the schedule property in favor of Shri C. Bhaskaran the petitioner No.1 herein and item number 3 and 4 of the schedule property in favour of Shri C. Pramod the Petitioner No.2 herein in terms of a Will dated 19.09.2007 and Codicil dated 29.09.2007. Thus upon the death of Sri C. Sridharan, petitioner No.1 became absolute owner in respect of item No.1 and 2 and petitioner No.2 became absolute owner in respect of item number 3 and 4 of the schedule property. (e) That on 05.05.2008 respondent No.3 issued a notice under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act addressed to Sri C Sridharan, in response wife of late Sri C Sridharan issued a reply on 23.05.2008 declining to accept the offer and made it clear that she would be agreeable to accept the market value as compensation or else requested for adjudication. That despite repeated requests and demands respondents did not adjudicate upon the market value of the schedule property and pass any award. In the circumstances a representation was made to respondent No.3 to furnish the award records under the Right to Information Act. An endorsement dated 26.12.2014 was issued intimating that no award had been passed. However, respondent No.3 once again sent a notice dated 31.12.2015 under Section 29(2) calling upon the petitioners to give consent for award at Rs.65 lakhs per acre. In the meanwhile, petitioners learnt that item number 1, 2 and 4 of the schedule property were allotted to respondent No.4. Petitioners issued a reply on 14.01.2016 declining to accept their proposal and made it clear that despite requests no award had been passed and the present market value the property was more than Rs.9.00 crores and thus requested to return the possession of the schedule property. (f) That in response to the demand of the petitioners to return the land, Respondent No.3 issued a notice dated 24.01.2017 under Section 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act directing the petitioners' predecessors in title Sri C Sridharan to appear on 16.02.2017. (g) Things stood thus during the pendency of present writ petition respondent No.3 passed a general award dated 05.02.2018 in respect of property in Survey Number 117/3 to the extent of 1 acre 13 guntas as against 1 acre 31 guntas. Again another award has been passed on 22.08.2023 for the remaining area of 17 guntas. That the general award has been passed after 11 years from the date of acquisition and subsequent to the demise of Sri C Sridharan without bringing the legal representatives on record and no opportunity has been granted to the petitioners to contest the award. Again another award has been passed on 22.08.2023 for the remaining area of 17 guntas. That the general award has been passed after 11 years from the date of acquisition and subsequent to the demise of Sri C Sridharan without bringing the legal representatives on record and no opportunity has been granted to the petitioners to contest the award. No notice prior to passing of the general award has been issued to the petitioners. Hence the writ petition. 4. Statement of Objections dated 14.03.2018 and Additional Statement of Objections dated 24.3.2025 to the writ petition has been filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 contending that: (a) That Price Advisory Committee constituted under the Chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner had determined the compensation at Rs. 65 lakhs per acre which is inclusive of market value and other components payable under Section 29(2) of KIAD Act. That pursuant to the same, Respondent No.3 issued notices on 17.01.2007, as per Annexures-E, E-1 and E-2 to the Khatedars. The Khatedars had lodged claim petition and sought for reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Respondent No.3 had taken possession of the lands on 29.05.2006 and has thereafter transferred the same to the Respondent No.2 under Section 28(8) of the Act. That since the Khatedars failed to appear and receive the compensation as determined by the Price Advisory Committee. Respondent No.3 had issued notice to conduct award inquiry as per Annexure S and S1 and after collecting the sales statistics from the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar for relevant period, passed the award on 05.02.2018 by determining the market value at Rs.11,85,600/- per acre and granted all statutory benefits. (b) That the contention of the petitioners that the market value determined by the authority is not commensurate with the prevailing market value and the same is far less is denied. It is contended that most of the landowners have accepted the compensation offered by Respondent No.3 as determined by the Price Advisory Committee and that the projects have already been implemented by the allottees around the Petition Schedule property. (c) That the compensation was determined as far back as in the year 2006 and notices under Section 29(2) of the Act were issued even as admitted by the petitioners. Sufficient opportunity of hearing was given to the Khatedars and the award was passed thereafter. (c) That the compensation was determined as far back as in the year 2006 and notices under Section 29(2) of the Act were issued even as admitted by the petitioners. Sufficient opportunity of hearing was given to the Khatedars and the award was passed thereafter. As such, no irregularity or illegality can be found in passing of the award. (d) That the acquisition proceedings are initiated under the provisions of KIAD Act and not under the Land Acquisition Act. As such, the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 are not applicable. That the delay in passing the award was only an account of non-cooperation from the Khatedars/petitioners. The respondent KIADB has followed all the procedures contemplated under KIAD Act and the Rules made thereunder. The allotment made in favor of respondent No.4 is therefore valid. (e) That the petitioners have no locus to challenge either the acquisition or the award dated 05.12.2018 as they have no right over the land in question. That the petitioners are claiming their rights based on Will said to have been executed by testator on 19.09.2007 which was registered on 02.08.2008 which is subsequent to issuance of final notification dated 19.12.2005 and after vesting of the land with the State free from all encumbrance under Section 28(5) of the KIAD Act. (f) That wife and children of deceased khatedar are alive but they are not made parties to the Writ Petition. That in the absence of the same, petitioners cannot claim right over the schedule property much less claim compensation or ask for awarding of the compensation in their name. As such, the award dated 05.02.2018 passed by the respondent No.3 and a consequential reference made under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the compensation before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru which has been registered as LAC Nos.17/2019, 19/2019 and 27/2019 is in accordance with law. (g). Petitioners, if they have got any right, title and interest over the lands, are at liberty to approach the reference court in pending cases and shall work out their remedy in accordance with law. (g). Petitioners, if they have got any right, title and interest over the lands, are at liberty to approach the reference court in pending cases and shall work out their remedy in accordance with law. (h) That the Special Land Acquisition Officer being a revenue officer has no right to decide the rights of the parties on the basis of the Will much less pass award in their favor and remedy if any is only to approach the competent civil court to establish their alleged rights if any. (i) That acquisition proceedings pertaining to very same notification has been upheld by this Court and is confirmed by the Apex Court and that the Division Bench of this Court by its order 21-2-2025 passed in Writ Appeal No.1071 of 2022 in respect of very same notification has held that the land owners in respect of the acquisition proceedings initiated prior to 01.01.2014 are not entitled for compensation under Land Acquisition Act 2013 and that since the acquisition proceedings in the instant case were initiated prior to 01.01.2014 the relief sought for by the petitioners cannot be entertained, hence sought of dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Respondent No.4 filed its statement of objection contending that: (a) The predecessor-in-title Sri.C Sridharan had filed his objection to the acquisition proceedings on 25.05.2004 and upon the consideration of the same final notification was issued on 19.12.2005. Subsequently on 17.01.2007 respondent No.3 had issued notice to Sri.C Sridharan intimating determination of amount of Rs.65 lakhs per acre as being the compensation decided by the Board and called upon him to submit requisite documents to claim the payment of compensation. (b) That the said, Sri. C Sridharan during his lifetime had been issued with notice dated 05.05.2008 intimating the price fixed by the Price Fixation Committee for payment of compensation. That the said Sri. C Sridharan has not referred to the notices issued by the respondents or about his response to the said notices either in the Will or the Codicil as such the said documents produced by the petitioners are an afterthought. (c) Referring to the contents of the Will, it is contended that Sri. C Sridharan claims to have purchased the subject land for Sri C. Pramod, partner of M/s. Gopalan Enterprises. As such, the said transaction falls within the ambit of provisions of Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act 1988. (c) Referring to the contents of the Will, it is contended that Sri. C Sridharan claims to have purchased the subject land for Sri C. Pramod, partner of M/s. Gopalan Enterprises. As such, the said transaction falls within the ambit of provisions of Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act 1988. That Sri Pramod, son of C. Gopalan, is the beneficiary under the Will. The said transaction is against the public policy and inconsistent with the established principles of law. Thus, the petitioners do not derive any title, interest and right on the subject land. (d) Smt K. P. Kamalam, wife of Sri. C. Sridharan, is stated to be the consenting witness to the Will executed by Sri. C Sridharan. That when the respondent No.2 had issued notice dated 05.05.2008, Sri. C Gopalan claiming to be the power of attorney holder of Smt. K. P. Kamalam had issued a reply dated 23.05.2008 stating her disagreement to the quantum of compensation proposed and the matter was sought to be referred to civil court for fixation of fair amount of compensation. That as on the date of the said reply, Smt. K. P. Kamalam was not the Khatedar in terms of the Will, which clearly indicates misleading attempts by the petitioners. (e) That the allotment of land to this respondent is in accordance with law following due process after vesting of the land with the State Government under Section 28 of the KIAD Act. As such sought for dismissal of the petition. 6. Sri Phanindra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for learned counsel for the petitioners adverting to the General Award dated 05.02.2018 and 22.08.2023 as per Annexures T and U passed by the Respondent No.3 submitted that: (a) When original khatedar Sri C Sridharan by his reply dated 26.03.2007 issued to the notice dated 17.01.2007 had categorically refused and declined to accept the consent award and had sought for determination of compensation in accordance with law, it was incumbent on the part of the respondent- SLAO to have proceeded in accordance with Section 29 of the KIAD Act. (b) That though the respondent authorities were aware of said Sri. C. Sridharan passing away on 19.10.2007 by bequeathing the petition schedule property in favour of petitioners and despite the same having been specifically pleaded in the writ petition, the respondent-SLAO has proceeded to pass the general award in the name of Sri. (b) That though the respondent authorities were aware of said Sri. C. Sridharan passing away on 19.10.2007 by bequeathing the petition schedule property in favour of petitioners and despite the same having been specifically pleaded in the writ petition, the respondent-SLAO has proceeded to pass the general award in the name of Sri. C Sridharan who is dead person. He submitted that the procedure purported to have been followed by the respondent authorities under Section 29 of the KIAD Act is illegal and therefore the general award requires to be quashed. (c) That if the award had been passed during the lifetime of Sri. C Sridharan, that is in the year 2007, he would have had the value of the money. Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz and others Vs. Government of Karnataka and others, 2025 SCC Online SC 20, he submitted that the respondent authorities cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own laxity in determining and disbursing the compensation to the original Khatedar. That the award admittedly having been passed after 11 years of issuance of notification, is of no avail in the absence of the respondent authorities complying with the constitutional and statutory mandate of acquiring the land by paying just and fair compensation. Thus relying upon the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court learned Senior Counsel insisted that the compensation be determined taking into consideration the present market value of schedule property. (d) As regards the objections raised by the respondents about the locus standi of petitioners to maintain the petition in view of they claiming rights in terms of Will and Codicil having come into existence after the acquisition, learned Senior counsel submitted that Will is a mode of devolution and does not amount to transfer of property causing any impediment in respondent authorities considering the petitioners to be the persons interested in the land subject matter of acquisition. He referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of S. Ratinam Vs. L.S. Mariappan, (2007) 6 SCC 724 and State of West Bengal Vs. Kailash Chandra Kapoor, (1997) 2 SCC 387 . He also referred to the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Janaki and others Vs. He referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of S. Ratinam Vs. L.S. Mariappan, (2007) 6 SCC 724 and State of West Bengal Vs. Kailash Chandra Kapoor, (1997) 2 SCC 387 . He also referred to the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Janaki and others Vs. State of Karnataka, ILR 2012 KAR 5017 to justify his contention of petitioners being legatees are the “persons interested” as contemplated in Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act. (e) He further submitted that there is no inter-se dispute between the petitioners and the natural heirs of deceased Sri. C. Sridharan. In any case, should there be any such issue, he submitted that the petitioners are willing file any affidavit, consent or undertaking as may be required from the persons concerned in the matter. 7. In response Sri. P V Chandrashekar, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that: (a) Preliminary Notification was issued on 09.02.2004 and the final notification was issued on 19.12.2005 and the possession of land was taken on 29.05.2006. That on 08.08. 2006 the Price Advisory Committee had determined the compensation at Rs.65 lakhs per acre payable under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act in one lumpsum, which was not accepted by the original Khathedar. (b) That on 05.02.2018 the Special Land Acquisition Officer passed the General Award under the Land Acquisition Act 1894. It is contended the delay in passing the award is only due to the various litigation with the interim orders and resistance from the landowners. Since the acquisition proceedings were upheld by this Court, confirmed by the Apex Court, the allotment were made to various parties and the general award has been passed. (c) That certain persons namely Sri. Srinivas and others filed a Writ Petition in WP No. 5916/2017 and connected matters seeking quash of acquisition and for declaration under Section 24(2) of the new Land Acquisition Act 2013 also subsequent to passing of the General Award on 05.02.2018 the petitioners therein sought amendment of writ petition seeking to quash the general award dated 05.02.2018 and to pass the award under the new Land Acquisition Act. That on 01.08.2022 the said writ petition in W.P.No.5916/2017 and connected petitions were allowed in part by upholding the acquisition proceedings. That on 01.08.2022 the said writ petition in W.P.No.5916/2017 and connected petitions were allowed in part by upholding the acquisition proceedings. However award dated 05.02.2018 insofar as the lands involved therein was quashed directing the respondent-SLAO to pass the fresh award under the provisions of the new Land Acquisition Act 2013. (d) Respondent-KIADB and the beneficiaries being aggrieved by the said order filed writ appeals in WA Nos. 1071 of 2022, 1064 of 2022 and 1072 of 2022 and the allottees also filed writ appeal in WA No.1110 of 2022 questioning the portion of the order which directed passing of the award under the new Land Acquisition Act, 2013. (e) That by order dated 21.02.2025 the writ appeals filed by the KIADB at principal Bench and the writ appeals filed at Dharwad Bench and other identical appeals and the Writ petition involving the question of payment of compensation under the new Land Acquisition Act, 2013 were disposed of by allowing the writ appeals filed by the KIADB and the beneficiaries. The writ Petition filed by the landowner seeking compensation under the new Act were dismissed. (f) The SLAO passed the award on 05.02.2018 after dismissal of the Special Leave Petition. The compensation in respect of the land involved in the present case has already been deposited before the Reference Court. (g) It is contended that the petitioners are not entitled to maintain the Petition as they are claiming their rights under the Will and Codicil allegedly executed by the original Khatedar subsequent to acquisition. That the Revenue Office has no jurisdiction to determine the rights of the Parties based on Will. As such seeks for rejection of the said prayer. He relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Anasuya Bai, (2017) 2 SCC 313 and the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Nagendra Singh Vs. Special Deputy Commissioner Bangalore District, 2006 (6) Kar. L.J. 391 (FB) in support of his submissions. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.4 supplementing the submission of learned counsel for respondent-KIADB, submitted that the award having been passed, compensation having been deposited before the Reference Court, date of acquisition cannot be shifted without there being any compelling circumstance. 9. Heard and perused the records. L.J. 391 (FB) in support of his submissions. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.4 supplementing the submission of learned counsel for respondent-KIADB, submitted that the award having been passed, compensation having been deposited before the Reference Court, date of acquisition cannot be shifted without there being any compelling circumstance. 9. Heard and perused the records. On consideration of facts of the matter and the submissions of respective learned counsel, the points that require consideration in this petition are; (i) Whether the petitioners are entitled to maintain the present writ petition? (ii) Whether in law and on the facts of this case the General Award dated 05.02.2018 and 22.08.2023 passed by the respondent-SLAO is sustainable? (iii) Whether petitioners have made out grounds for shifting of date of acquisition for the purpose of determination of compensation from date of issuance of preliminary notification that is 09.02.2004 to the present date? 10. There is no dispute that schedule property belonging to late Sri C Sridharan was sought to acquired in terms of a preliminary notification dated 09.02.2004 followed by final notification dated 19.12.2005 issued under Sections 28(1) and 28(4) of the KIAD Act, 1966. The said Sri C. Sridharan had filed his statement of objection on 25.05.2004 seeking to drop the aforesaid lands from acquisition. However, by notices dated 17.01.2007 issued under section 29(2) of the KIAD Act 1966 as per annexure E to E2 the respondent-SLAO, had offered to pay Rs.65 lakhs as compensation per acre of land as determined by the Price Advisory Committee and called upon said Sri C Sridharan that if he was interested to accept the same he could produce the records and consent for acquisition by Agreement. There is also no dispute that in response, said Sri. C. Sridharan had issued a reply dated 26.03.2007 declining to accept the offer and had contended that subject lands were converted from agricultural to non agricultural purposes and the market value of the land per acre was Rs.4.00 crores and that if the authority still intended to proceed further with acquisition, matter could be referred for adjudication on payment of proper compensation. 11. 11. That the said Sri C. Sridharan stated to have passed away on 19.10.2007 purportedly bequeathing item number 1 and 2 of the Schedule property in favour of Petitioner No.1 and item number 3 and 4 in favour of petitioner No.2 by executing Will dated 19.09.2007 and Codicil dated 29.09.2007. Respondent- SLAO issued yet another notice dated 05.05.2008 under Section 29(2) reiterating the contents of the earlier notice dated 17.01.2007, calling upon the said Sri C Sridharan once again to accept the award of Rs. 65 lakhs per acre and to submit the documents within 15 days thereafter. In response to the said notice, wife of said Sri C Sridharan, namely Smt Kamalam, represented by her power of attorney holder Sri C Gopalan, issued a reply dated 23.05.2008 declining to accept the said offer, and reiterating the earlier response dated 26.03.2007 issued by her husband. Father of Petitioner No. 2, Sri C. Gopalan, who was the brother of deceased Sri. C. Sridharan, had apparently sought information regarding status of award if any having been passed in respect to the schedule property. In response thereof, a letter was issued by the respondent-SLAO on 22.12.2014 intimating that no award in respect to the schedule property had been passed. Things stood thus, the respondent-SLAO, again by notice dated 31.12.2015 issued under Section 29 (2) reiterated the contents of earlier notices. The said notice was again addressed to Sri C Sridharan, the notified khatedar. 12. Necessary at the juncture to note that in the reply notice dated 23.05.2008 issued by Smt. Kamalam she had described herself as “wife of late Sri Sridharan” yet the respondent -SLAO chose to issue the notice in the name of deceased Sri. Sridharan unmindful of the fact that he had already passed away. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the meanwhile had allotted subject lands in favour of Respondent No.4. Petitioners claiming to be the legatees in terms of the Will and Codicil purportedly executed by deceased Sri C Sridharan filed the present writ petition on 02.02.2017. Admittedly even as on the date of filing of the Writ Petition, award had not been passed by the respondent-SLAO. 13. Petitioners claiming to be the legatees in terms of the Will and Codicil purportedly executed by deceased Sri C Sridharan filed the present writ petition on 02.02.2017. Admittedly even as on the date of filing of the Writ Petition, award had not been passed by the respondent-SLAO. 13. Though deceased Sri C Sridharan in his reply dated 26.03.2007 issued in response to the notice dated 17.01.2007 and thereafter his wife Smt. Kamalam describing herself to be the wife of late Sri C. Sridharan had issued her reply dated 23.05.2008 in response to the notice dated 05.05.2008 issued by the respondent -SLAO declining to accept the offer of Rs.65 lakhs per acre as compensation and requesting the matter to be referred for adjudication of compensation, respondent-SLAO did not take any action as required under law. 14. The Apex Court in the case of Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Anasuya Bai, (2017) 2 SCC 313 at paragraph 18 has clarified that “The provisions which is made under Section 29 of KIAD Act calls for determination of compensation by agreement between the State Government on the one hand and the land owner who is to be compensated for the land acquired. On the other hand, in case no such agreement is arrived at, the State Government is supposed to refer the case to the Deputy Commissioner for determination of amount of compensation who is required to determine the compensation as per Section 30 of the KIAD Act. Section 30 of the KIAD act provides that for fixing the compensation the Deputy Commissioner is supposed to follow the same procedure as prescribed under old LA Act. Obviously, in that event after, following the procedure in the old LA Act, the Deputy Commissioner is required to pass an award (which is contemplated under Section 9 of the old LA Act )” 15. Necessary at the juncture to refer to provisions of Sections 29 and 30 of the KIAD Act, 1966 which read as under; Section 29 : Compensation. (1) Where any land is acquired by the State Government under this Chapter, the State Government shall pay for such acquisition compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act (2) Where the amount of compensation has been determined by agreement between the State Government and the person to be compensated, it shall be paid in accordance with such agreement. (1) Where any land is acquired by the State Government under this Chapter, the State Government shall pay for such acquisition compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act (2) Where the amount of compensation has been determined by agreement between the State Government and the person to be compensated, it shall be paid in accordance with such agreement. (3) Where no such agreement can be reached, the State Government shall refer the case to the Deputy Commissioner for determination of the amount of compensation to be paid for such acquisition as also the person or persons to whom such compensation shall be paid. (4) On receipt of a reference under sub- section (3), the Deputy Commissioner shall serve notice on the owner or occupier of such land and on all persons known or believed to be interested herein to appear before him and state their respective interests in the said land. 30. Application of Central Act 1 of 1894: The provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894) shall mutatis mutandis apply in respect of the enquiry and award by the Deputy Commissioner, the reference to Court, the apportionment of compensation and the payment of compensation, in respect of lands acquired under this Chapter; 16. Relevant also to refer to the Provisions of Section 9 , 10 and 11 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, which are as under: 9. Notice to persons interested (1) The Collector shall then cause public notice to be given at convenient places on or near the land to be taken, stating that the Government intends to take possession of the land, and that claims to compensation for all interests in such land may be made to him. (2) Such notice shall state the particulars of the land so needed, and shall require all persons interested in the land to appear personally or by agent before the Collector at a time and place therein mentioned (such time not being earlier than fifteen days after the date of publication of the notice), and to state the nature of their respective interests in the land and the amount and particulars of their claims to compensation for such interests, and their objections (if any) to the measurements made under section 8. The Collector may in any case require such statement to be made in writing and signed by the party or his agent. (3) The Collector shall also serve notice to the same effect on the occupier (if any) of such land and on all such persons known or believed to be interested therein, or to be entitled to act for persons so interested, as reside or have agents authorised to receive service on their behalf, within the revenue district in which the land is situate. (4) In case any person so interested resides elsewhere, and has no such agent, the notice shall be sent to him by post in a letter addressed to him at his last known residence, address or place of business and registered under sections 28 and 29 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 (6 of 1898). 10. Power to require and enforce the making of statements as to names and interests: (1) The Collector may also require any such person to make or deliver to him, at a time and place mentioned (such time not being earlier than fifteen days after the date of the requisition), a statement containing, so far as may be practicable, the name of every other person possessing any interest in the land or any part thereof as co- proprietor, sub-proprietor, mortgagee, tenant or otherwise, and of the nature of such interest, and of the rents and profits (if any) received or receivable on account thereof for three years next preceding the date of the statement. (2) Every person required to make or deliver a statement under this section or section 9 shall be deemed to be legally bound to do so within the meaning of sections 175 and 176 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).Enquiry into measurements, value and claims, and award by the Collector. 11. (2) Every person required to make or deliver a statement under this section or section 9 shall be deemed to be legally bound to do so within the meaning of sections 175 and 176 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).Enquiry into measurements, value and claims, and award by the Collector. 11. Enquiry and award by Collector (1) On the day so fixed, or on any other day to which the enquiry has been adjourned, the Collector shall proceed to enquire into the objection (if any) which any person interested has stated pursuant to a notice given under section 9 to the measurements made under section 8, and into the value of the land [at the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section (1), and into the respective interest of the persons claiming the compensation and shall make an award under his hand of- (i) the true area of the land; (ii) the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land; and (iii) the apportionment of the said compensation among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, of whom, or of whose claims, he has information, whether or not they have respectively appeared before him: [Provided that no award shall be made by the Collector under this sub-section without the previous approval of the appropriate Government or of such officer as the appropriate Government may authorise in this behalf: Provided further that it shall be competent for the appropriate Government to direct that the Collector may make such award without such approval in such class of cases as the appropriate Government may specify in this behalf.] [Inserted by Act 38 of 1923, Section 5.] (2) [Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), if at any stage of the proceedings, the Collector is satisfied that all the persons interested in the land who appeared before him have agreed in writing on the matters to be included in the award of the Collector in the form prescribed by rules made by the appropriate Government, he may, without making further enquiry, make an award according to the terms of such agreement. (3) The determination of compensation for any land under sub-section (2) shall not in any way affect the determination of compensation in respect of other lands in the same locality or elsewhere in accordance with the other provisions of this Act. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), no agreement made under sub-section (2) shall be liable to registration under that Act.] 17. Thus, once the Khatedar or the legal representative had declined the offer for consent agreement, it was incumbent on the part of the respondent-SLAO to have issued notice to the Khatedar or his representatives calling upon him/them to participate in the inquiry for the purpose of determination of the compensation amount which is not done in the instant case. 18. General Award dated 05.02.2018 along with other documents has been produced by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 along with the memo dated 11.07.2022. Perusal of the general award would indicate that there has been no inquiry proceedings conducted in respect of the schedule property. Paragraph 6 at page 17 of the general award indicate that petitions in writ Petition No. 52413-52416-2016 filed by one J. Shivashankar and 6 others in respect of lands in Survey. No. 117/33 situated at Amani Bendanduru Khane village were pending consideration and that this Court by order dated 05.10.2016 had directed both the parties to maintain status quo and the said interim order had been extended from time to time. Thus indicating no inquiry has been conducted in respect of the petition schedule property. However, at page 21 of the general award, while determining the compensation, the respondent-SLAO has taken the value of the lands in Kariammana Agrahara village at Rs. 4.00 lakhs per acr and Amani Benandurukhane village at Rs. 7,45,600/ per acre and at Kadubisinahalli at Rs. 24,11,260/- per acre. Thereafter taking average of land value of the aforesaid three villages determined the compensation at Rs.11,85,600/- to be the market value of the land payable to the notified khatedar with other statutory benefits provided under the Act . 19. 4.00 lakhs per acr and Amani Benandurukhane village at Rs. 7,45,600/ per acre and at Kadubisinahalli at Rs. 24,11,260/- per acre. Thereafter taking average of land value of the aforesaid three villages determined the compensation at Rs.11,85,600/- to be the market value of the land payable to the notified khatedar with other statutory benefits provided under the Act . 19. Though learned counsel for the Respondent-KIADB sought to contend that the delay in passing the award was only due to various litigations with the interim orders and the resistance of the landowners, and has given the details of the petitions which were filed and disposed of, said submission cannot be countenanced for the reason even when the general award was passed on 05.02.2018, the present writ petition was pending consideration. As such if the respondent- SLAO intended to pass the general award he could well have passed the same in accordance with law much prior to filing of the writ petition, that is, soon after the deceased Sri C Sridharan had indicated his unwillingness to accept the consent award and had sought for reference of the matter by his reply dated 26.03.2007. This is as far back as in the year 2007. Even thereafter, when the second notice was issued, his wife, Smt. Kamalam had also indicated her inclination to seek determination of the compensation in accordance with law. The respondent authorities not having done the same, cannot now contend that the delay in passing the award was due to the pendency of the proceedings, which submission cannot be countenanced. 20. Necessary also to note that since the writ petition is pending consideration nothing prevented the Respondent authorities to inform this Court regarding passing of the general award date 05.02.2018. Nothing prevented the Respondent authorities to inform either the petitioners or the wife of the deceased Sri. C Shridharan regarding the process of passing the general award. No notice as required under Section 29(3) of the KIAD Act is served on the legal representatives of the deceased Khatedar. No explanation is offered regarding non compliance of provisions of Section 29(3) though the respondent authorities are completely aware of petitioners claiming their rights under the purported Will and Codicil and the death of Sri C Shridaran. 21. Acquisition is of the year 2004-2005. Notice under Section 29(2) has been issued on 17.01.2007 and 05.05.2008. No explanation is offered regarding non compliance of provisions of Section 29(3) though the respondent authorities are completely aware of petitioners claiming their rights under the purported Will and Codicil and the death of Sri C Shridaran. 21. Acquisition is of the year 2004-2005. Notice under Section 29(2) has been issued on 17.01.2007 and 05.05.2008. General award has been passed on 05.02.2018 taking the value of the acquired land as existed during the year 2004. The reasons for delay in passing the award as sought to be made out by the respondent authorities having negated as above, the question therefore is whether the value taken by the respondent-KIADB of the acquired land as existed during the year 2004 is sustainable? Relevant at this juncture to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz and others (Supra) involving postponement of date of Preliminary Notification from 29 th January 2003 to the year 2011, referring to its various earlier judgments on the question of shifting the date of preliminary notification for the purpose of awarding just and fair compensation the Apex Court recognising its power under Articles 32/142 and of the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution at paragraphs 48 to 57 has held as under: "48. It cannot be gainsaid that the appellants herein have been deprived of their legitimate dues for almost 22 years ago. It can also not be controverted that money is what money buys. The value of money is based on the idea that money can be invested to earn a return, and that the purchasing power of money decreases over time due to inflation. What the appellants herein could have bought with the compensation in 2003 cannot do in 2025. It is, therefore, of utmost importance that the determination of the award and disbursal of compensation in case of acquisition of land should be made with promptitude. 49. We find that in the present case, the appellants were required to knock at the doors of the courts on number of occasions during the period of last twenty-two years. The appellants have been deprived of their property without paying any compensation for the same in the said period of last twenty-two years. As already discussed hereinabove, the appellants had purchased the plots in question for construction of residential houses. The appellants have been deprived of their property without paying any compensation for the same in the said period of last twenty-two years. As already discussed hereinabove, the appellants had purchased the plots in question for construction of residential houses. Not only have they not been able to construct, but they have also not been even paid any compensation for the same. As discussed hereinabove, though Right to Property is no more a fundamental right, in view of the provisions of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, it is a constitutional right. A person cannot be deprived of his property without him being paid adequate compensation in accordance with law for the same. 50. In the present case, it can clearly be seen that there is no delay which can be attributed to the appellants in not getting compensation, but it was on account of the lethargic attitude of the officers of the State/KIADB that the appellants were deprived of compensation. 51. Only after the notices were issued in the contempt proceedings, the compensation was determined by the SLAO on 22 nd April 2019 taking guideline values prevailing in the year 2011 for determining the market value of the acquired land. 52. No doubt that as already observed by us hereinabove, we do not find any error in the approach adopted by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in holding that the SLAO could not have shifted the date and it could have been done only by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 32/142 of the Constitution of India or by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the learned Single Judge of the High Court instead of relegating the appellants to again go through the rigors of determination by SLAO, ought to have exercised powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to do complete justice. Even the Division Bench of the High Court on a hyper technical ground has non- suited the appellants. 53. In that view of the matter, we find that it is a fit case wherein this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution should direct shifting of the date for determination of the market value of the land in question of the appellants. 54. 53. In that view of the matter, we find that it is a fit case wherein this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution should direct shifting of the date for determination of the market value of the land in question of the appellants. 54. If the compensation to be awarded at the market value as of the year 2003 is permitted, it would amount to permitting a travesty of justice and making the constitutional provisions under Article 300-A a mockery. 55. Since the State/KIADB was in deep slumber from 2003 to 2019 and acted for the first time only after the notices were issued in contempt proceedings, we find that though SLAO had no power to shift the date for determination of market value, he had rightly done so. The learned Single Judge of the High Court also does not say that the determination of compensation to be awarded by shifting of the date by the SLAO to that of 2011 was unjust but only sets aside the award on the ground that SLAO had no jurisdiction to do so. 56. There is another reason for doing so. If on account of the inordinate delay in paying the compensation and thereby depriving the constitutional right to the appellants under Article 300-A, the land acquisition proceedings are quashed, the only recourse available to the State/KIADB in order to save the project will be to now issue a fresh acquisition notification by invoking the provisions as applicable under the 2013 LA Act which would entail huge expenditure to the public exchequer. 57. We, therefore, in exercise of power of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, find it appropriate in the interest of justice that the SLAO be directed to determine the compensation to be awarded to the appellants herein on the basis of the market value prevailing as on 22nd April 2019. The appellants shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits as are available to them under the 1894 LA Act. This shall be without prejudice to the rights/contentions of either party, in case they make a reference before an appellate authority, if they are so aggrieved by the fresh determination of compensation by the SLAO. The appellants shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits as are available to them under the 1894 LA Act. This shall be without prejudice to the rights/contentions of either party, in case they make a reference before an appellate authority, if they are so aggrieved by the fresh determination of compensation by the SLAO. We further clarify that, any other award which may have been passed pursuant to the directions of the learned Single Judge of the High Court shall stand nullified by this judgment." 22. Even in the instant case no fault can be attributed either on the petitioners or the original Khatedar for the delay in respondent authorities proceeding to pass the award in accordance with law. The land owner cannot be deprived of their legitimate entitlement for just and fair compensation. Therefore the this Court is of the considered view that the date  of preliminary notification for the purpose of determination and awarding just and fair compensation in the instant case is required to be shifted to the date on which the impugned general award has been passed. 23. The other contentions urged by learned counsel for the Respondent-KIADB as well as Respondent No.4 the allottee is that the petitioners being the legatees under the purported Will dated 19.09.2007 and the Codicil Dated 29.09.2007 which were executed subsequent to issuance of the acquisition notifications were not entitled to maintain the Writ Petition and that in the light of the Judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sri Nagendra Singh V. Special Deputy Commissioner Bangalore District 2206(6) Kar.L.J 391 (FB) to contend that mutation on the basis of the Will is not permissible and that the Revenue Officer is not competent to decide the rights of the parties under the Will, necessary at this juncture to note that for the purpose of Sections 3(b) and 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 term “person interested” has been dealt with by the Coordinate Bench of this court in the case of Smt Janaki and others (supra) wherein at paragraph  10 has held that “Even non-owner of a property can legitimately claim compensation, if he has legally recognisable interest in the land.” 24. That apart, learned Senior counsel for petitioner on instruction, categorically submitted that there is no dispute between the petitioners and the natural heirs of deceased Sri C Sridharan, the original Khatedhar, and that should there be any such dispute, they would undertake to file such affidavit or undertaking as may be required under law. Reliance placed on by the learned counsel for respondent-KIADB on the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of C N Nagendra Singh (supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case inasmuch as even as on this date there appears to be no dispute between the petitioners who are claiming to the legatees under the Will and Smt. Kamalam who is admittedly the wife of the Khatedar. That apart it is always open for the respondent authorities to issue notice to all the persons interested including the natural heirs of the deceased original Khatedar and ascertain and satisfy regarding the genuineness of the claim to be made for the compensation,  particularly now that all facts are placed before this Court and to the knowledge of the respondent authorities. Respondent authorities cannot be allowed shirk away for performing their constitutional and statutory obligation of determination and payment of just and fair compensation on this specious ground. 25. The issue of determination of dispute would arise when the petitioners or the natural heirs were called upon to file their claim statements/objection as the case may be in the manner known to law. Without even initiating such steps the respondent authorities cannot premonish about a non-existent dispute. As such, the said contention is rejected. 26. Points raised are answered accordingly. 27. In view of the foregoing discussions and analysis, following: ORDER: (i) Writ Petition is allowed in part. (ii) Writ petition to the extent seeking quashing of preliminary notification dated 09.2.2004 and final notification dated 19.12.2005 as per Annexures “B” and  “D” and quashing of allotment letter dated 10.03.2015 and possession certificate dated 25.01.2016 as per Annexures ‘Q” and “R” is rejected. (iii) The impugned General Award dated 05.02.2018 and 22.08.2023 as per Annexures “T” and “U” to the extent of subject land are quashed. (iv) Since the Parties are represented by their respective counsel requirement of the Respondent-SLAO issuing notice to them as required under the provision of Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 is dispensed with. (iii) The impugned General Award dated 05.02.2018 and 22.08.2023 as per Annexures “T” and “U” to the extent of subject land are quashed. (iv) Since the Parties are represented by their respective counsel requirement of the Respondent-SLAO issuing notice to them as required under the provision of Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 is dispensed with. Petitioners as well as the natural legal heirs of the deceased Sri C. Sridharan are at liberty to file their objections/representation before the Respondent-SLAO on or before 10.07.2025. (v) The Respondent-SLAO shall after consideration of such Objections/representation pass a fresh award within a period of two months thereafter taking into consideration the market value of the property as on 05.02.2018. (vi) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the genuineness or authenticity of the claim made by the Petitioners claiming to be the legatees under the Will dated 19.09.2007 and the Codicil Dated 29.09.2007 purported to have been executed by deceased Sri Sridharan during his life time. It open for the petitioners to establish and satisfy their right before  Respondent-SLAO in furtherance to submission made by the learned Senior counsel by obtaining such documents from the natural heirs of the deceased Sri Sridharan or by keeping them personally present during the enquiry to the satisfaction of the Respondent-SLAO strictly in accordance with law.