SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 2

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, K. V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz And Others – Appellant
Versus
Government of Karnataka And Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10338 of 2023)
Decided on : 02-01-2025

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.

The court ruled that the State Land Acquisition Officer cannot shift the date for determining compensation; only higher courts possess that authority under Articles 32/142 of the Constitution.

Headnote:(A) Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 - Section 28 - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 11 and 30 - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Acquisition of land for Bengaluru-Mysuru Infrastructure Corridor Project - Appellants’ land acquired in 2003, yet no compensation disbursed - Award dated 22nd April 2019 shifting date of preliminary notification quashed by High Court - Court held that SLAO lacks authority to shift date for determining compensation, which is only permissible for superior courts under Articles 32/142 of the Constitution. (Paras 17.8, 17.10, 24)

(B) Appeal - Grounds for appeal - Appellants contended that their claims for compensation were not premature and should be considered as the issue of shifting the date for market value was already determined against them. (Paras 22, 23)

(C) Findings of Court - The Division Bench erred in dismissing the appeal as premature; the SLAO must determine compensation based on market value as of the date of the award. (Paras 23, 59)

Facts of the case:
The appellants purchased land in 1995-1997, which was acquired in 2003 for the Bengaluru-Mysuru Corridor Project. They sought compensation based on current market value due to significant delays.

Findings of Court:
The court found the SLAO's actions in shifting the date of valuation unauthorized and directed fresh awards based on the correct market value.

Issues: Whether the SLAO could shift the date for determining compensation, and whether the appellants’ claims were premature.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that only higher courts could shift the date for compensation determination and that the SLAO's actions were legally impermissible.

Result: Appeal allowed; the SLAO was directed to issue a fresh award based on market value as of 22nd April 2019.

Judgement Key Points

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?


JUDGMENT :

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal takes exception to the final judgment and order dated 22nd November 2022 in Writ Appeal No. 678 of 2022 (LA-KIADB) passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ appeal filed by the appellants herein against the judgment and order dated 18th April 2022 in Writ Petition No. 1627 of 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissing their writ petition.

FACTS:

3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:

3.1. From 1995 to 1997, the appellants herein purchased various residential sites at Gottigere Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Karnataka vide registered sale deeds and became absolute owners of their respective sites.

3.2. On 3rd April 1997, a Framework Agreement (hereinafter, “FWA”) was executed between Government of Karnataka (Respondent No. 1) and Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise Ltd. (hereinafter, “NICE”) (Respondent No. 6) envisaging the Infrastructure Corridor Project connecting Bengaluru-Mysuru (hereinafter, “Bengaluru-Mysuru Infrastructure Corridor Project” or “BMICP”). As per the FWA, the State Government undertook to acquire about 13,237 acres of land from private persons and about 6,956 acres of Government land. In all 20,193 acres of land was agreed to be conveyed and transferred in favour of Respondent No. 6 (NICE) for implementation of the BMICP.

3.3. On 14th October 1998, Respondent No. 6 applied to Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (hereinafter, “KIADB”) (Respondent No. 2) to make available the lands for the project.

3.4. On 29th January 2003, a preliminary notification was issued by Respondent No. 2 (KIADB) under sub-section (1) of Section 28 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter, “KIAD Act”) for acquiring lands for the BMICP. Notices were issued under sub-section (2) of Section 28 of KIAD Act seeking objections from the land-owners. The appellants also submitted their objections.

3.5. On 5th July 2003, upon consideration of the objections to the Preliminary Notification, the Final Notification was issued by Special Deputy Commissioner KIADB (Respondent No. 3).

3.6. On 22nd November 2005, the possession of the appellants’ land was taken over by Respondent No. 2 (KIADB) and subsequently handed over to Respondent No. 6 (NICE) and its sister concern Nandi Economic Corridor Enterprises Ltd. (NECE) (Respondent No. 7). However, no Award was passed immediately for such acquisitions.

3.7. In 2009-10, the land-owners filed Writ Petitions before the High Court of Karnataka with a prayer to quash the acquisition notifications insofar as it relates to their lands. In the alternative, the land-owners sought a direction to the concerned authorities to allot residential sites of equal dimension.

3.8. Vide judgment and order dated 15th June 2011, a Division Bench of the High Court held that the acquisition notifications cannot be quashed at such a belated stage and that there cannot be any direction for allotment of alternative sites to the land-owners. In the result, the batch of Writ Petitions filed by the land-owners were dismissed, however, liberty was reserved to approach the concerned authorities if any rehabilitation programme is specifically worked out or if any welfare programme is generally available.

3.9. On 12th February 2016, in terms of the judgment and order of the High Court dated 15th June 2011, some of the land-owners submitted a representation inter-alia to the Government of Karnataka, KIADB and NICE to frame a rehabilitation scheme as mandatorily required under the FWA and to allot alternative sites along with benefits under the scheme at the earliest.

3.10. On non-consideration of their representation, the landowners filed Writ Petitions before the High Court being W.P. Nos. 49812-49863 of 2016 (LA-KIADB), with a prayer to direct the State of Karnataka and KIADB to implement the re

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top