ABDUL NAZEER, J. - (1.)THE short question for consideration in these writ petitions is whether the Land Acquisition Officer, Koppal, the second respondent herein is justified in deducting 10% of the interest awarded under Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') towards deduction of tax at source though the lands acquired were agricultural lands?
(2.)THE petitioners were the owners of agricultural lands at Arekeri Village, Yelburga Taluk, Koppal District. The said lands were acquired by the State Government for Hirehalla Irrigation Project. The second respondent made an award under Section 11 of the Act determining the compensation. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the petitioners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Reference Court enhanced the compensation. The petitioners filed appeals before this Court under Section 54 of the Act seeking further enhancement of the compensation.
It is an admitted fact that this Court awarded compensation at Rs. 80,000/- per acre together with all other statutory benefits. Since the Land Acquisition Officer did not satisfy the decrees, the petitioners made representation to the Land Acquisition Officer requesting him to pay the compensation in terms of the said decrees. They have further requested him not to deduct the tax at source. However, the Land Acquisition Officer has proceeded to deduct 10% of the interest awarded under Sections 28 and 34 of the Act towards deduction of tax at source on the basis of the circular issued by the State Government at Annexure 'B' dated 4.9.2010.

(3.)LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners submits that having regard to Section 194LA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the second respondent is not justified in deducting the tax at source from the interest accrued on delayed payment of compensation. The circular at Annexure 'B' is violative of Section 194LA of the Income Tax Act.