Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. R. Chandrachud, AOR Mr. Dhuli Venkata Krishna, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sharanagouda Patil, Adv. Mrs. Supreeta Patil, Adv. Mr. Kotrabasappa, Adv. Mr. Jyotish Pandey, Adv. M/S. S-legal Associates, AOR Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Amith S J, Adv. Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, AOR Ms. Vani Vyas, Adv.

Question 1? How to determine compensation: can the State SLAO shift the date for determining market value of land acquisitions, or is this power reserved to higher courts under Articles 32/142 of the Constitution? Question 2? What is the proper date for calculating compensation under the LA Act/KIAD Act when there is delay in award and possession, and whether such date can be shifted to a later date? Question 3? What are the appropriate remedies where compensation has not been disbursed for lands acquired decades earlier, and whether a court can direct fresh awards based on updated market value?

Key Points: - (!) The SLAO cannot shift/postpone the date of preliminary notification; such power is not available to SLAOs or the State Government and is reserved for the Supreme Court or High Court under Article 32/142 or Article 226. - (!) - (!) The District SLAO’s shifting of the date to 2011 for market value was impermissible; only the Court may adjust dates under exceptional circumstances. - (!) - (!) The Division Bench erred in relying on SLAO-based shifting of the date; the correct approach is that market value should be taken as on the date of the preliminary notification under Section 11 LA Act, except in exceptional cases decided by Courts. - (!) - (!) The Court directed shifting of the date for determination of market value to 22 April 2019 under Article 142 to render complete justice, recognizing extraordinary delay and constitutional rights under Article 300-A. - (!) - (!) The judgment authorized fresh awards by SLAO based on market value prevailing as on 22 April 2019, and preserved rights to challenge the award in reference. - (!) - (!) Advocate General opinions cannot be sole basis for SLAO to pass awards; market value must reflect appropriate dates per law and precedent. - (!) - (!) The decision emphasizes the seven sub-rights under Article 300-A and the State’s duty to pay prompt and fair compensation; delays violate constitutional protections. - (!) - (!) The final order: SLAO to pass fresh award within two months based on market value as of 22 April 2019, with statutory rights preserved; prior awards/quashed.

Question 1?

How to determine compensation: can the State SLAO shift the date for determining market value of land acquisitions, or is this power reserved to higher courts under Articles 32/142 of the Constitution?

Question 2?

What is the proper date for calculating compensation under the LA Act/KIAD Act when there is delay in award and possession, and whether such date can be shifted to a later date?

Question 3?

What are the appropriate remedies where compensation has not been disbursed for lands acquired decades earlier, and whether a court can direct fresh awards based on updated market value?