ORDER :

R. DEVDAS, J.

Though the matter is listed for “Hearing-Interlocutory Application”, with the consent of the learned counsels on both the sides, the petition is heard and disposed of finally.

2. The contentions of the petitioners is that they are the owners of the land bearing Sy.No.10, measuring 166 acres 37 guntas. Out of that about 13 acres 34 guntas of agricultural land was sold in favour of Sri.Annapppa S/o Basappa and Sri.Gangappa S/o Sanganna in the year 1974. Later, the said Sri. Annappa and others raised dispute with regard to the kharab portion of the land attached to the land that was sold in their favour and with respect to another 7 acres of land, before the Civil Court at Kaduru and Tarikere. It is stated that the petitioners succeeded before the trial Court. The regular appeal in R.A.No.14/1997 was dismissed on 17.12.2009. Further, the regular second appeal in RSA No.759/2010 was also dismissed on 28.08.2013. It is therefore the contention of the petitioners that there is a declaration by the competent civil Court and this Court that the petitioners herein sold only an extent of 13 acres 34 guntas of land, in Sy.No.10 under the registered sale deed dated 30.10.1974, and the boundaries to the land disposed of the petitioners are mentioned in the sale deed. Therefore, it has been held that though beyond the property purchased by the said Sri.Annappa and Sri.Gangappa, there is phut kharab land and since the said purchasers have not purchased the said property and as a phut kharab land is not in possession of the said purchasers, the question of the petitioners enjoying the phut kharab land does not arise for consideration at all. It is therefore contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is a clear declaration by the competent civil court and this Court that the petitioners are entitled for the phut kharab land attached to Sy.No.10 under the notification issued by the respondent-State Government, notifying the lands for acquisition for the purpose of “Suvarna Karnataka Corridor”, the entire extent of 166 acres 37 guntas have been notified. In the very same notification, an extent of 13 acres 34 guntas have been notified in the names of Sri.Annappa and Sri. Ganappa. Learned counsel therefore submits that the petitioners are entitled for the compensation towards the remaining extent, in Sy.No.10, excluding 13 acres 34 guntas.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-KIADB would submit that the notification was issued in terms of the revenue records and it is an admitted fact that as on the date of the notification, the names of the petitioners were not found in the revenue record. Therefore, the names of Sri.Basappa S/o Basappa, Sri.Annappa s/o Basappa and Sri.Gangappa S/o Sanganna have been shown with respect to the land measuring 166 acres 37 guntas.

4. Nevertheless, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the dispute that was raised by the petitioners herein in the suit was against the said Sri.Annapp and Sri.Gangapp and not against the State Government. The declaration made by the civil Court is as against the defendants therein and not against the State Government. It is therefore the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the claim of the petitioners regarding the kharab portion will have to be decided by the competent civil court or reference Court, as the case may be, under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.

5. In some of the recent decisions of this Court, where disputes were either pending between the parties claiming right over the lands that were notified by the State Government for the purpose of expansion of National Highways or for the purpose of the Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation, this Court noticed that the Acquiring Agency had arrived at the package amount payable under Section 29(2) of the KIADB Act. It was recorded that after receipt of the notice issued to the claimants calling upon them to state their willingness to receive th