Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Land Acquisition Compensation Case — Directs Shifting of Date for Determining Market Value Due to Inordinate Delay. Compensation to be Determined as on Date of Award Instead of Preliminary Notification Under Section 28 of KIAD Act, 1966.

In Favour of Accused
  • 1865
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellants, Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz and others, purchased residential sites in Gottigere Village, Bengaluru between 1995 and 1997. On 3rd April 1997, a Framework Agreement was executed between the Government of Karnataka and Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise Ltd. (NICE) for the Bengaluru-Mysuru Infrastructure Corridor Project, requiring acquisition of about 20,193 acres of land. On 29th January 2003, a preliminary notification was issued under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (KIAD Act) for acquiring the appellants' lands. After objections, a final notification was issued on 5th July 2003, and possession was taken on 22nd November 2005 and handed over to NICE. However, no award was passed for compensation until 22nd April 2019, when the Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award determining compensation based on guideline rates of 2011, shifting the date of preliminary notification from 2003 to 2011. The project proponents challenged this award, and the landowners also filed a writ petition seeking compensation based on current market value. The learned Single Judge quashed the award and directed fresh awards within three months, dismissing the landowners' petition as not surviving. The Division Bench dismissed the landowners' appeal as premature. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that due to the inordinate delay of over 16 years in passing the award, the date for determining market value should be shifted to the date of the award (22nd April 2019) to ensure just compensation. The Court directed the authorities to pass fresh awards determining compensation as on the date of the award, with interest as per law, and apportioned any additional liability between the State Government and KIADB, not the project proponents. The Court rejected the claim for compensation under the 2013 LA Act, as the KIAD Act incorporates the 1894 LA Act.

Headnote

A) Land Acquisition - Compensation - Shifting of Date for Market Value - Inordinate Delay - Section 28, Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 - Where there is an inordinate delay in passing the award after taking possession, the court may direct that compensation be determined on the basis of market value as on the date of the award, not the preliminary notification, to ensure just and fair compensation. Held that the High Court erred in dismissing the appeal as premature and that the appellants are entitled to compensation as on the date of the award (Paras 7-12).

B) Land Acquisition - Applicability of 2013 LA Act - Section 30, KIAD Act, 1966 - The provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 apply mutatis mutandis for determination of compensation under the KIAD Act. The 2013 LA Act is not applicable to acquisitions under the KIAD Act. Held that the appellants' claim for compensation under the 2013 LA Act is not maintainable (Para 13).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the date for determining the market value of acquired land should be shifted from the date of preliminary notification to the date of award due to inordinate delay in passing the award, and whether compensation should be determined under the 2013 LA Act.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 22nd November 2022 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka and the judgment and order dated 18th April 2022 of the learned Single Judge are set aside. The authorities are directed to pass fresh awards determining compensation as on the date of the award (22nd April 2019) with interest as per law, within three months. Any additional liability due to shifting of date shall be borne by the State Government and/or KIADB, not the project proponents.

Law Points

  • Compensation for land acquisition must be determined as on date of award when there is inordinate delay not attributable to landowner
  • Section 28 of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act
  • 1966
  • Section 30 of KIAD Act
  • Land Acquisition Act
  • 1894
  • Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
  • Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
  • 2013
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025 LawText (SC) (1) 26

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 10338 of 2023

2025-01-02

B.R. Gavai

2025 INSC 3

Shri R. Chandrachud (for appellants), Shri Atmaram N. S. Nadkarni (for Respondents 6 and 7), Shri Avishkar Singhvi (for State of Karnataka), Shri Purushottam Sharma Tripathi (for Respondents 2 to 5)

Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz and Others

Government of Karnataka and Others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil appeal against dismissal of writ appeal by High Court of Karnataka in land acquisition compensation matter.

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought direction to determine compensation based on current market value as on date of award, shifting from date of preliminary notification.

Filing Reason

Appellants' lands were acquired in 2003 but no compensation was paid for 18 years; the award passed in 2019 was quashed by the High Court, and their appeal was dismissed as premature.

Previous Decisions

High Court Single Judge quashed the award dated 22nd April 2019 and directed fresh awards; Division Bench dismissed appellants' appeal as premature.

Issues

Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the writ appeal as premature. Whether the date for determining market value should be shifted from the date of preliminary notification to the date of award due to inordinate delay. Whether compensation should be determined under the 2013 LA Act.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the appeal was not premature as the issue of shifting date was decided against them; more than 21 years had passed without compensation; relied on Ram Chand and Tukaram Kana Joshi for shifting date; sought compensation under 2013 LA Act via Section 30 of KIAD Act. Respondents 6 and 7 argued that they were not responsible for delay; any additional liability should fall on State/KIADB; shifting of date is rare; no claim under 2013 LA Act was raised earlier.

Ratio Decidendi

Where there is an inordinate delay in passing the award after taking possession of land, the court may direct that compensation be determined on the basis of market value as on the date of the award to ensure just and fair compensation, shifting from the date of preliminary notification. The 2013 LA Act is not applicable to acquisitions under the KIAD Act, which incorporates the 1894 LA Act.

Judgment Excerpts

In the present case, the preliminary notification was issued on 29th January 2003. The possession was taken on 22nd November 2005. However, the award came to be passed only on 22nd April 2019. There is thus an inordinate delay of more than 16 years in passing the award. We are of the considered view that the present case is a fit case where the date for determining the market value should be shifted from the date of preliminary notification to the date of the award. The High Court erred in dismissing the writ appeal as premature. The issue of shifting of date was squarely raised and decided against the appellants.

Procedural History

1995-1997: Appellants purchased residential sites. 3rd April 1997: Framework Agreement executed. 29th January 2003: Preliminary notification under Section 28(1) of KIAD Act. 5th July 2003: Final notification. 22nd November 2005: Possession taken. 2009-2010: Landowners filed writ petitions; dismissed on 15th June 2011 with liberty to approach authorities. 12th February 2016: Representation for rehabilitation. 2016: Writ petitions filed; disposed on 24th March 2017 directing consideration. 2018-2019: Contempt petitions filed. 22nd April 2019: Award passed. 19th June 2019: Project proponents filed writ petitions challenging award. 1st June 2021: Appellants filed writ petition. 18th April 2022: Single Judge quashed award and dismissed appellants' petition. 22nd November 2022: Division Bench dismissed appeal as premature. Present appeal by special leave.

Acts & Sections

  • Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966: Section 28, Section 30
  • Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
  • Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad Partly Allows CIDCO's Appeal and Dismisses Claimants' Appeal in Land Acquisition Compensation Case — Market Value Determined at Rs. 1,50,000/- per Hectare Based on Sale Deed of Similar Land. The court reduced the ...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Second Appeal in Specific Performance Suit Based on Oral Agreement and Part Performance. The court upheld the decree for specific performance of an oral agreement for sale of a suit block, finding that the plaintiff had prove...