The main legal point established in the judgment is that compensation for land acquisition proceedings initiated after the enactment of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 should be determined under the provisions of the said Act and not under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. In this petition, petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:-

" a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction of like nature, quashing the impugned award notice Sl.No.KIADB/Acquisition (Da) / Gail India Ltd., 01/2019-20/875 dtd.: 31/12/2021 as per Annexure-P and award No. KIADB/Land Acquisition (D4) Gail India Ltd., /01/2019-20/314 dtd.: 29/7/2021 at Annexure-Q. passed by the respondent No.2 as violated of natural justice and constitutional rights of the petitioners, in the interest of justice and equity.

(a.a) Issue writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to pass award as per the New Karnataka Industrial Area Development (Amendment) Act, 2022 as per the Constitutional right considering the Market Value and schedule -I of Right to fair compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013."

b) Issue any such other Writs, orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant under the facts and Circumstances of the case in the interest of justice."

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for the 1st respondent - State as well as the learned counsel for respondents 2 to 4 and perused the material on record.

3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, submits that though several facts, grounds and reliefs have been urged and sought for in the petition, the petitioners are aggrieved only by the Award dtd. 29/7/2021 passed by the 2nd respondent for the purpose of contending that in the light of the undisputed fact that the Preliminary Notification under Sec. 28(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short 'the KIAD Act') was issued by the respondents on 27/8/2020, after coming into force of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'the said Act of 2013'), the petitioners would be entitled to compensation in terms of the said Act of 2013 and not under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the L.A.Act'), as wrongly applied by the respondents, who have erroneously passed the impugned Award under the L.A.Act and not under the said Act of 2013 and as such, the impugned award deserves to be quashed. It is also submitted on instructions that insofar as the other grounds and contentions urged in the petition except the challenge to the award, are not pressed by the petitioners. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon a decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Sri.Balaji Corporate Services and another vs. Union of India and others - W.P.No.43206/2018 c/w W.P.No.53716/2017 dtd. 21/4/2022.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submit that since the petitioners are not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the respondents in the impugned Award, the only remedy available for the petitioners is to seek reference to the Civil Court for enhancement of compensation and on this ground also, the present writ petition is not maintainable. It is further submitted that Sec. 30 of the KIAD Act, was amended w.e.f 5/4/2022 and the same is prospective and not retrospective and would not apply to the acquisition proceedings initiated prior to 5/4/2022 and consequently, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that it is an undisputed fact that the acquisition proceedings, in relation to the subject property were initiated pursuant to the Preliminary Notification dtd. 27/8/2020, which was issued subsequent to 1/1/2014 when the said Act of 2013 came into force. Under identical circumstances, in Sri.Balaji's case supra, this Court held as under:-

"12. On overall consideration of the entire material on record, the legal principles that emerge from the aforesaid discussion can be summa