Authorities must pass consent awards within three months after landowners accept government-fixed compensation rates.

The petitioners’ lands in Kandagal village were notified for acquisition for the Upper Krishna Project under Section 11(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, on 22 July 2022.

The Government fixed consent-award rates on 9 October 2025, and the petitioners submitted their consent to those rates on 12 May 2026.

As no consent award had been passed, they sought a direction for payment of compensation and an order restraining respondent No. 8 bank from recovery action against their mortgaged properties.

The bank asserted a first charge over the compensation; the Court was also informed that an earlier writ petition concerning the bank’s recovery actions had been dismissed and that an appeal was pending.

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to pass a consent award for the acquired lands at the rates fixed by the Government, within a time-bound period.

2. Whether the bank’s asserted charge over the compensation should be recognized when directing its disbursement, and what amount, if any, should be paid to the petitioners.

Article 300A of the Constitution protects the right to property and, as stated by the Court, gives rise to a right to just compensation when property is acquired.

The acquisition was initiated under Section 11(1) of the 2013 Act.

The Court relied on these principles to require timely completion of the compensation process after acquisition and after the petitioners accepted the Government’s consent-award rates.

The direction giving the bank priority over the award amount was based on the bank’s submission through counsel.

The Court noted that the lands had been acquired in 2022, the Government had fixed consent-award rates in October 2025, and the petitioners had accepted those rates in May 2026, yet no consent award had been passed.

In light of the constitutional protection of property and the petitioners’ consent to the fixed rates, the Court directed the respondents to pass the award within three months.

As to disbursement, it gave effect to the bank’s asserted charge by directing that its dues be satisfied first; it did not separately grant the requested injunction against recovery action.

The bank is to have the first charge over any compensation awarded; any balance remaining after its charge and dues are fully satisfied is payable to the petitioners.