1. The petitioner claims that she was the owner of 4 acres of land bearing Sy.no.74/302 of Band; Kodigenahalli. The same having been the subject matter of acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the Karoataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'KIAD Act', for brevity, the petitioner had unsuccessfully challenged those proceedings in WP 12931-32/2011. It is alleged that the same was unauthorizedly withdrawn by the counsel engaged by her in that case. It is also the petitioner's case that to her shock, she had also learnt that the compensation amount due to her in respect of the above land had been drawn by some other, impersonating her. In respect of the said incident, a criminal case is said to be pending. It is the petitioner's case that a large amount of Rs.1.24 Crore and Rs.44 Lakh had been allowed to be drawn in her name, with the active connivance of the concerned officials.

The petitioner is hence before this court seeking a direction to the respondents to pay the compensation amount justly due to her.

2. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) that the acquisition proceedings in question were in respect of an extent of 450.05 acres of land acquired ra Bandi Kodigenahalli, Yelehanka Taluk, Bangalore North. A writ petition filed earlier by the petitioner, as admitted, did not contain any complaint of the nature now stated. The same was withdrawn. It is stated that one Mary John is said to have lodged a complaint with the Lokayuktha, to state that compensation payable in respect of her land measuring 4 acres has been paid to an impostor and that the said complaint is the subject matter of investigation. In the light of the admitted payment of compensation, the present petition is not maintainable.

It is further stated that the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, has passed an Order in Case No.RRT/2/CR/305-A/95-96 dated 1.4.2009, in a case registered under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'KLR Act', for brevity) ordering deletion of the names of Byranna. son of Kempanna and Mary John, wife of K.P.Paul, in respect of Survey No.74/302 (8 acres) of Bandi Kodigenahalli Village. It was also ordered to continue the name of the Government in the records in respect of this land, holding that the aforesaid persons were claiming under bogus grants. The Special Deputy Commissioner had also ordered for recovery of the compensation amounts already paid. The said order is not questioned by anyone including the petitioner. It is contended that in view of the orders passed by the Competent Authority under Section 136(3) of KLR Act, the claim of the petitioner is false and untenable. Hence, the question of passing an award, as requested in the writ petition, does not arise.

It is further contended that the Registrar, Lokayukta, had sought for a Report in this regard and the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) has already submitted a Report on 31.3.2010. And that steps have also been initiated for recovery of the amount from the recipients of the compensation in respect of Survey No.74/302, to an extent of 8 acres, namely, Shri. Byranna, son of Kempanna and Smt. Mary John, wife of K.P.Paul, that is the petitioner herein. The petitioner, instead of complying with the requirements of the notice, has filed this writ petition and hence seeks dismissal of the same.

It is further pointed out that the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this court in WP 15030/2009, questioning the Order dated 1.4.2009 passed under Section 136(3) of the KLR Act. The said petition having been dismissed, the petitioner has no subsisting right to file the present petition. The fact of having approached this court earlier is deliberately suppressed and hence, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this petition.

3. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder to meet the contentions of