1. In these writ petitions, petitioners are calling in question the Preliminary Notification dated 15.09.2000 issued under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 (for short, ‘KIAD Act’) and the Final Notification dated 13.05.2005 issued under Section 28(4) of the Act, acquiring various lands such as Sy. No.29 measuring 1 acre 34 guntas and another extent of 29 guntas in the very same survey number, Sy. No.25 measuring 4 acres 18 guntas, Sy. No.107/3 measuring 1 acre 31 guntas, Sy. No.99 measuring 2 acres 22 guntas, Sy. No.106 measuring 2 acres 30 guntas and Sy. No.99 measuring 2 acres 20 guntas, all situated in Anagahalli village, Srirangapatna Taluk of Mandya District. Petitioners have also called in question the notices dated 26.05.2016 issued under Sections 9 & 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘LA Act’) calling upon the petitioners to appear before the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 21.06.2016 to give their statement in that connection.

2. It is relevant to notice, at the outset that petitioners claim to be absolute owners of all these lands. They had earlier challenged acquisition of their lands by filing W.P.No.20195/2005 and connected cases. This Court vide order dated 15.10.2008 allowed the writ petition and quashed the notifications reserving liberty to the respondent-authorities to proceed with the acquisition afresh, if they intended to go ahead with the development of II phase of Industrial Area at Mysuru. This order was challenged by the KIADB and Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, in W.A.Nos.259-265/2009 and connected cases.

3. By order dated 16.12.2010, writ appeals were allowed setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Challenge made to the impugned notifications was dismissed. However, it was made clear that land owners/the writ petitioners who had not received compensation during the pendency of the writ petition shall be paid compensation based on the market value as obtained on the date of final notification issued under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act on 13.06.2005. The Special Leave Petition filed against the said order passed by the Division Bench was dismissed as per order dated 18.01.2016. According to the petitioners, possession of the lands of the petitioners has not been taken. It is also clear that as on date, no award has been passed.

4. It is urged by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners Mr. Shashikiran Shetty, that as no award has been passed and no compensation has been paid, entire acquisition proceedings have lapsed. He invites the attention of the Court to Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, ‘New Act’) in this connection. It is his next contention that as per the well settled principle of law, in terms of decision of the Apex court in NAGPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST & ANOHTER VS VITHAL RAO & OTHERS – 1973 AIR SC 689, irrespective of lands being acquired under various statutes, compensation payable has to be similar. It is in this background, Counsel for petitioners contends that notices issued under Sections 9 & 10 of the LA Act by the Land Acquisition Officer suffer from illegality. It is his submission that proposed award to be passed under Section 11 of the LA Act would be invalid because compensation cannot be determined with reference to the Old Act which has been repealed.

5. In the statement of objections filed by respondents 2 to 4, it is contended that as per Section 28(5) of the Act, lands stood vested in the State by operation of law once notification under Section 28(4) of the Act was issued. Reliance is placed on the judgments in the case of M.NAGABHUSHANA VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS – AIR 2011 SC 1113 and GRINAR TRADERS VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS – (2011) 3 SCC 1.

6. Having heard the learned Counsel for all the parties, the question that falls for consideration is, whether the ac