(1.) THE petitioners' grievance is that despite the compulsory acquisition of the lands in question for the benefit of the respondent No. 1, the respondent No. 2 is showing inaction in the matter of passing the award in accordance with the compensation package of the first respondent.
(2.) SRI M. Shivaprakash, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners on coming to know of the compulsory acquisition of the lands did not object to the acquisition with the understanding that the petitioners would be paid the compensation in terms of the first respondent's scheme containing the compensation package. He submits that the respondent No. 1 has already constructed a ramp on the tend in question.
(3.) SRI P.V. Chandrashekar, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that the question of passing the award in terms of the first respondent's compensation package does not arise, as the same are being made over to the respondent No. 3. He submits that the award would be passed in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 ('KIAD Act' for short).