ORDER :

1. The petitioner in this writ petition calls in question the order dated 13.01.2017 passed by the respondent No. 2 and the consequential intimation letter dated 29.12.2017 again by the respondent No. 2.

2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present petition are that the petitioner came in possession of the land measuring 1 acre in Sy. No. 129/1/1B situated at Mahal Bagayath village, taluk and district Vijayapur. Having purchased it from one Yunus by way of registered sale deed dated 25.06.2009. Being in possession of the land, the petitioner applied for conversion of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose on 30.10.2012 and after due verification, the competent authority accorded permission for conversion of the land from the agricultural to non-agricultural purpose on 22.12.2014. The petitioner again applied for approval of layout. On 22.12.2014, the petitioner applied for conversion of her land for the purpose of formation of layout which was permitted by an order of the Deputy Commissioner. During the subsistence of the aforesaid proceedings and the construction of a layout on 12.04.2016, the respondent No. 2 initiated acquisition proceedings to acquire the land for the purpose of formation of a four lane road and issued notification under subsection 1 of section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.

3. After obtaining the opinion and recommendations for disbursement of compensation from the hands of respondent No. 1, the compensation was to be disbursed by the respondent No. 2 in favour of the petitioner, in terms of the award notice dated 30.01.2016. Despite the petitioner submitting all the documents, no compensation was paid in terms of the award notice by the respondent No. 2, which drove the petitioner to this Court in writ petition No. 200013/2017. This Court by an order dated 16.11.2017 disposed the writ petition by the following order:

6. In view of the submission by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition could be disposed of with the following directions:

(a) 2nd respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for release of amounts in terms of the order passed by this Court.

(b) The petitioner shall submit a representation and therewith enclose certified copies of 15 documents detailed in the award notice.

(c) 2nd respondent shall within 15 days from the date of receipt of the representation consider and release the award amount in the alternative, if the 2nd respondent is of the opinion that the documents do not demonstrate the title of the petitioner, he shall intimate the same to the petitioner by a written communication. The said communication shall be issued within a stipulated period of 15 days.

Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms.”

4. This Court in terms of the order supra reserved liberty to the respondents to obtain opinion with regard to documents of the petitioner to regarding her title and if it is in dispute, or the title of the petitioner is in doubt, the amount will not be released in favour of the petitioner.

5. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the respondent No. 2 issued notice to the petitioner that the amount concerning acquisition of 120 sq. meters would not be released in favour of the petitioner as no documents are produced before them, in terms of the order passed by this Court. The petitioner gave a reply on 21.12.2017 enclosing all the documents that were in her possession for seeking compensation insofar as it concerns to 120 square meters of the acquired land by the respondent No. 2.

6. In spite of such submission, order dated 29.12.2017 passed by the respondent No. 2 on the ground that the petitioner has not surrendered the land towards buffer zone as was required. It is this order that has called in question before this Court by the petitioner.

7. Heard Smt. Ratna N. Shivayogimath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. S.S. Halalli, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Sri