1. The petitioners’ grievance is that no compensation whatsoever is paid to them on account of the compulsory acquisition of the lands in respect of which they were the occupants.

2. Sri Meghachandra, the learned counsel appearing n behalf of the petitioners submits that petitioner Nos. 1 to 6 have been in cultivation of the lands measuring 1.96 acres in Survey No. 177/1, 2.08 acres in Survey No. 290/1, 3.20 acres in Survey No. 288/2, 2.31 acres in Survey No. 60/2, 3.27 acres in Survey No. 288/2 and 0.93 acres in Survey No. 176/1A, respectively. All these lands are in Ira village of Bantwal Taluk. He brings to my notice the orders passed by the Regularisation Committee granting the lands to the petitioners; in respect of four petitioners , even the proceedings pursuant to the grant order are drawn. He submits that the necessary amounts as demanded by the authorities are already paid. When such was the state of affairs, the respondent No. 1 acquired the lands in question for the benefit of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (‘KIADB’ for short) for the purpose of industrial development. The final notification under Section 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 was issued on 7.5.2008. The petitioners made the requests and representations for passing the award in their favour and for disbursements of compensation. The learned counsel for the petitioners prays for a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioners’ representations at Annexures- ‘A’ to ‘F’ wherein they have prayed for payment of compensation amounts.

3. Sri Venkatesh Dodderi, the learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1, 2 and 4 submits that these petitions are premature. He further submits that as per the endorsement dated 23.4.2010 (Annexure-‘P’), the 4th respondent Thasildar has sought the necessary instructions from the 2nd respondent Deputy Commissioner. He submits that the matter has not attained the finality and if some more time is granted, the Deputy Commissioner will issue necessary instructions.

4. Sri Praveen Kumar Raikote, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 submits that the petitioners are not entitled to receive the compensation. He further submits that they are not title-holders; the lands in question are the government lands; saguvali chits are not even issued to the petitioners; and their names do not figure in the record of rights and in the acquisition notifications. He submits that all those persons, whose names figured in the revenue records, have already received compensation.

5. On hearing the learned advocates, the question that arises for my consideration is: whether the grantees of the government lands are entitled to compensation on account of their compulsory acquisition?

6. To answer this question, it is necessary to advert to the relevant statutory provisions and the interpretation put on them. Sections 3(b) and 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 reads as follows:

“3(b). the expression “person interested” includes all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of land under this Act; and a person shall be deemed to be interested in the land if he is interested in an easement affecting the land.

9(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 or persons so interested, as reside or have agents authorized to receive service on their behalf, within revenue district in which the land is situate.”

7. The term “person interested n the land” is not given an exhaustive definition. Its inclusive definition has extended the concept of a “person interested” to the widest of amplitude. As a necessary consequence, apart from the land-owners, a mortgagee, a tenant, a lessee, a grantee, a person having easement over the land a host of others would also come