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
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.
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
Ram Chand and Others v. Union of India and Others
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. State of Maharashtra and Others
Competent Authority v. Barangore Jute Factory and Others
Haji Saeed Khan and Others v. State of U.P. and Others
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.
The right to property under Article 300A must be upheld through due legal processes; unlawful dispossession by state authorities mandates compensation per statutory requirements.
The landowners are entitled to just compensation at current market value when delays in awarding compensation are not due to their actions.
The judgment emphasizes that lapsing provision under Section 11A does not apply to acquisitions made by Nagpur Improvement Trust under NIT Act, while also highlighting entitlement to compensation for....
Compulsory acquisition of land – If any individual is to be divested or deprived of said right by State, it ought not be done without giving compensation in accordance with law for land so acquired f....
Legal authorities must conduct proper inquiries and provide fair compensation during land acquisitions, ensuring all interested parties are notified and allowed to contest.
The court emphasized that failure to follow mandatory procedures in land acquisition invalidates the award, highlighting the necessity of proper notifications and consideration of market value as per....
The duty to compensate upon land acquisition is a constitutional safeguard, ensuring no individual is deprived of property without legal due process and fair compensation, embodied in Article 300A.
The right to property under Article 300-A mandates compensation for land acquisition, and the State cannot deprive landowners of their property without due process and compensation.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.