( 1 ) THE Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, 2nd respondent herein had acquired 4 acres of land in Sy. No. 32, among other lands, situate at anneshwara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk for formation of international airport at Devanahalli. This land is claimed by the petitioner as belonging to him on the basis of various sale deeds and the entries in the revenue records apart from his name being notified in the preliminary and final notifications as the kathedar. However, the acquiring authority refused to pass any award. This action was questioned by the petitioner by filing W. P. No. 6001 of 2002. Learned Single Judge who heard the matter, by his order dated 21-9-2002, quashed the endorsement refusing to pass the award and directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer to conduct an enquiry and pass award in accordance with law. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the Land acquisition Officer conducted an enquiry and passed an order on 24-12-2002 - Annexure-A holding that the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation, on the basis of a letter written by the Deputy Commissioner. This order is questioned in this petition.

( 2 ) SRI Ravivarmakumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer though has held that petitioner has proved his title but, refused to grant any compensation solely on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner has addressed a letter to him stating that the genuineness of the original grant certificate - the basis of claim is itself suspect, without even giving an opportunity to the petitioner to explain.

( 3 ) SRI Ashok B. Hinchigeri, learned Counsel for respondents 2 and 4 defended the order. He contended that having regard to the date on which the grant certificate was printed namely, on 10-4-1965 whereas the grant is said to have been made on 2-3-1962, it was sufficient to improbabilise the genuineness of the grant certificate which was the source of title for the petitioner. No further enquiry was needed in this regard.

( 4 ) HE nextly submitted relying on the decision of the Madras, Andhra pradesh and Calcutta High Courts, referred below: state of Tamil Nadu and Another v P. Kanagamani and Others; ukhra Forest and Fisheries (Private) Limited v State of West Bengal and Others; afzal Bee v The Special Deputy Collector and Others; jivandas Khimji v Smt. Narbada Bai. That the Land Acquisition Officer while passing an award exercises only 'administrative function' and not 'quasi-judicial function'. As an agent of the Government, he makes an offer to the claimant and it is for the claimant to accept or reject the offer by taking the money or approaching the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Such an action of the Land acquisition Officer is not amenable to writ jurisdiction.

( 5 ) LASTLY, he submitted that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the award of the Land Acquisition Officer, he has to request the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to a Civil Court for determination of his title to the property. He cannot approach this Court by passing the said remedy.

( 6 ) IN order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act (for short, 'development Act') and also the provisions of the Land Acquisition act which has a bearing on the controversy. Chapter VII of the Development act provides for acquisition and disposal of lands. Section 29 of the said Act provides for payment of compensation for the acquired lands. Section 29 (1) to 29 (4) extracted for ready reference: "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 compen