10 Hence & Ors. v. STATE505 OF KARNATAKA High Court dispose<:f of the appeal filed by & Ors.

1.10 Hence, the Writ Petition filed by the Company questioning the correctness of the award passed by the Reference Court which is affirmed by the High Court is not at all maintainable in law. On this ground itself, the Writ Petition filed by the Company should have been rejected by the High Court instead it has allowed and remanded the case to the Reference Court for re consideration of the claims after affording opportunity to the Company which order suffers from error in law and and in contravention of the provisions of the KIAD D Act, L.A. Act, the KIADB Regulations and the lease agreement, which has been executed by the KIADB in favour of the Company. Therefore the same is liable to be set aside. [Paras 58 and 59] [538-G-H; 539-A, C, D] E F

1.11 The High Court has also committed an error in law in not appreciating Section 54 of the L.A. Act, which provision provides the rightto appeal to the land owners, or State Government and beneficiaries of the acquired land, but not to the Company which is the lessee. When the company does not have the right to file an appeal against the award it also has no right to file a writ petitjon. [Para 60] [539-E-F]