After acquisition is restored, compensation must be determined in accordance with law, not a site-allotment resolution.

The respondents’ land was included in the 2003 notifications for a BDA layout, but no award was passed.

In 2016, the acquisition was held to have lapsed; while that order was operative, the BDA passed a resolution on 21 December 2017 to allot the respondents 50% of the developed land, and some sites were subsequently allotted.

In 2021, the Division Bench reversed the 2016 decision, restoring the acquisition.

In the respondents’ later writ petition, the Single Judge held that they were entitled to compensation rather than further sites, but directed that compensation be determined using the market value as at 21 December 2017.

The BDA appealed that valuation direction, and the respondents had also initiated contempt proceedings alleging non-compliance with the Single Judge’s order.

Whether the market value for compensation could be fixed as at 21 December 2017, when the acquisition had been restored and the respondents had already received some developed sites.

Whether the contempt proceeding should continue in light of the appellate court’s modification of the Single Judge’s directions.

The acquisition was governed by the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 and the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The court held that, following restoration of the acquisition, the landowners’ entitlement was to just compensation in accordance with law; the 2017 resolution, made while the acquisition had been set aside, could not displace that entitlement or independently determine the valuation date.

The court did not identify or rely on a specific precedent in resolving the appeal.

The court reasoned that the 21 December 2017 resolution was made when the acquisition had been set aside and was an arrangement arising from that circumstance.

Once the Division Bench restored the acquisition, the landowners’ entitlement was to statutory compensation, not further sites under that resolution.

Because some sites had already been allotted and the resolution did not provide a sustainable basis for using its date to value the acquired land, the Single Judge’s direction fixing market value as at 21 December 2017 could not stand.

The court left the questions concerning compensation open for determination in appropriate proceedings.

The direction to determine compensation by reference to the market value as at 21 December 2017 was vacated.

The landowners remain entitled to just compensation in accordance with law, and the BDA was directed to pass a fresh award, taking account of the sites already allotted, within three months of receiving the judgment.

The contempt proceeding was closed, with liberty to file afresh if the directions were not complied with; all questions on compensation were left open.