An acquisition lapse before possession does not bar a landowner’s claim for damages under Section 93(2).

The petitioner’s 62.36 sq. m property in Bhantanur village was included in a preliminary acquisition notification issued on 2 April 2018 for the Upper Krishna Project and in a final notification issued on 21 January 2022.

The petitioner agreed to a consent award, and a notification under Section 30-A of the Karnataka Amendment Act was issued on 10 June 2024, but no award followed.

The State submitted that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 25 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and that an order dated 8 September 2026 recorded the lapse and withdrawal of consent.

The petitioner sought an order directing the authorities to make the consent award and pay compensation.

Whether the petitioner’s request for a direction to make a consent award and pay compensation remained live after the State stated that the acquisition had lapsed.

Whether the petitioner could seek compensation for damage and costs under Section 93(2) of the 2013 Act following the lapse or withdrawal of the acquisition.

Section 25 of the 2013 Act requires the Collector to make an award within twelve months of publication of the declaration under Section 19, subject to the Government’s power to extend the period; if no award is made within the applicable period, the acquisition proceedings lapse.

Section 23-A of the Karnataka Amendment Act provides for a consent award, and Section 30-A was invoked in connection with the consent arrangement in this case.

Under Section 93(1) of the 2013 Act, the appropriate Government may withdraw from an acquisition where possession has not been taken; under Section 93(2), the Collector must determine and pay compensation for damage caused to the owner by the notice or proceedings, together with reasonably incurred costs.

No precedent was cited.

The State’s memo and the Special Land Acquisition Officer’s affidavit established that the acquisition proceedings concerning the petitioner’s property had lapsed, making the requested mandamus for a consent award and payment no longer necessary.

Although the State argued that Section 93(2) did not apply because the notification recorded lapse under Section 25, the Court considered that the notification also had the effect of leaving the property out of an acquisition where possession had not been taken. It therefore left the petitioner free to seek damages under Section 93(2), without determining the merits or amount of any claim.

It granted liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation to the Deputy Commissioner seeking damages under Section 93(2) within three weeks; the Deputy Commissioner was directed to consider it in accordance with law within four weeks of receipt.

The matter was listed for reporting compliance on 30 November 2026.