Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 – Supreme Court exercises Article 142 to remedy delayed compensation – High Court’s judgment set aside – SLAO directed to reassess compensation based on fair market value.

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 300-A: State's failure to compensate landowners for over 16 years violates the fundamental right to property – Court invokes Article 142 to rectify the injustice.

Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 – Sections 28 & 29: Land Acquisition – Date of Valuation – Only Supreme Court or High Court has the authority to alter the date of valuation of land acquisition compensation – SLAO lacks jurisdiction to modify the valuation date.

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Compensation Assessment: Market value must be determined based on preliminary notification unless exceptional circumstances justify modification. Supreme Court directs Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) to pass a fresh award considering the 2019 market value.

Supreme Court’s Invocation of Article 142: Extraordinary powers exercised to ensure just and fair compensation – Delayed compensation adjusted to current market rates.

Financial Liability & Responsibility: State of Karnataka, KIADB, and NICE to settle financial burden arising from increased compensation. Disputes regarding liability between State and NICE remain open for adjudication.

Acts & Sections Discussed:

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 300-A
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 – Sections 28, 29
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Compensation Provisions
Supreme Court’s Powers under Article 142

Subjects:

Land Acquisition – Compensation Delay – Market Value – Supreme Court Intervention – Article 142 – Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act – Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) – Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise Ltd. (NICE) – Bengaluru-Mysuru Infrastructure Corridor Project (BMICP)

Facts:

1. Nature of Litigation:

   • Challenge against Karnataka High Court’s order (22nd November 2022) in W.A. No. 678 of 2022, relating to land acquisition compensation under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (KIAD Act).

2. Who is Asking the Court & for What Remedy?

   • Appellants (landowners) sought fair compensation for their acquired lands used for the Bengaluru-Mysuru Infrastructure Corridor Project (BMICP).
   • They challenged the Special Land Acquisition Officer’s (SLAO) Award dated 22nd April 2019, which they claimed undervalued the land.

3. Reason for Filing the Case:

   • Landowners were deprived of compensation from 2003 to 2019.
   • SLAO unilaterally shifted the valuation date from 2003 to 2011, leading to disputes.

4. What Has Already Been Decided Until Now?
   a) High Court’s Single Judge (2019) quashed the SLAO’s award, ruling that only the Supreme Court or High Court could alter the valuation date.
   b) Division Bench (2022) dismissed landowners’ claim as premature, stating that a fresh award must be passed.

Issues for Consideration:

1. Whether the SLAO had the authority to shift the valuation date from 2003 to 2011?

   • Held: No. Only the Supreme Court or High Court can modify the valuation date.

2. Whether the appellants’ compensation claim could be entertained despite the quashing of the 2019 Award?

   • Held: The claim was premature as the SLAO was directed to pass a fresh award.

Submissions / Arguments:

Appellants:

• Compensation should be determined as per the prevailing market value in 2019, not 2003.
• The delay in payment violated constitutional rights under Article 300-A.

Respondents (State & NICE):

• The appeal was premature, as a fresh award was yet to be issued.
• The financial burden should not be solely on NICE, as the State was responsible for the delay.

Decision:

Supreme Court Quashed the Karnataka High Court’s Order (22nd November 2022).
SLAO directed to reassess compensation within two months based on the 2019 market value.
Appellants granted the right to challenge the fresh award if dissatisfied.
State & NICE to settle financial liability among themselves.

Ratio:

Delaying land acquisition compensation for 16 years violates fundamental property rights under Article 300-A.
SLAO cannot shift the date of valuation without High Court or Supreme Court approval.
Supreme Court’s Article 142 powers used to ensure just and fair compensation.