A 1894 Act award for post-2013 KIADB acquisition must be replaced with a 2013 Act award or consideration of developed land.

The petitioner claimed ownership of 8 guntas in Sy. No. 32/1, Adihosahalli, Nelamangala Taluk.

The land was proposed for acquisition for a multimodal logistics park by notifications dated 8 December 2020 and 11 August 2021.

The petitioner alleged that the notifications were issued in his deceased father’s name, that he received no notice of the award, and that the award dated 12 January 2023 assessed compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The petitioner later stated that he did not press the alternative request for an award under the 2013 Act.

Respondents’ counsel submitted that suitable steps could be taken if the petitioner and his family consented.

1. Whether the general award dated 12 January 2023, made under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, should be quashed insofar as it concerned the petitioner’s 8 guntas.

2. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to obtain compensation through a consent award under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act or, alternatively, seek developed land under the State Government’s policy.

The Court held that, because the land was proposed for acquisition by a notification dated 8 December 2020, the award was required to be made in accordance with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, rather than the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

It also considered Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act, which provides for a consent award, and the State Government’s policy of providing developed land to land losers instead of cash compensation.

The Court noted that the award had been made under the 1894 Act despite the acquisition process having commenced by notification in 2020, and concluded that the award could not stand in respect of the petitioner’s land.

The petitioner’s memo confirmed that he preferred compensation through a consent agreement and did not press his alternative request for an award under the 2013 Act.

Taking account of the respondents’ submission that steps could be taken upon consent, and the State’s policy concerning developed land, the Court quashed the award for the affected portion and directed the authority to provide the stated alternatives.

Respondent No. 3 was directed, within three months of receiving the order, to pass a consent award in accordance with the 2013 Act or consider the petitioner’s request for developed land in the same industrial area under the State Government’s policy.