Failure to pass an award within the statutory period lapses acquisition; owners may seek damages under Section 93(2).

A preliminary notification under Section 11(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“2013 Act”) was issued on 2 April 2018 for the Upper Krishna Project.

A final declaration under Section 19(1), issued on 21 January 2022, included the petitioners’ properties in Bhantanur Village.

The landowners agreed to the consent award, and a notification under Section 30-A of the Karnataka amendment to the 2013 Act was issued on 10 June 2024.

The petitioners sought a mandamus directing the authorities to pass the consent award and pay compensation.

The State submitted that no award had been made within the statutory period, that the acquisition had lapsed, and that an order dated 8 September 2026 had withdrawn the consent arrangement; it supported those submissions with a memo and affidavit.

1. Whether the petitioners’ request for a direction to pass a consent award and pay compensation remained for consideration after the State asserted that the acquisition had lapsed.

2. Whether the petitioners could seek compensation for loss or damage under Section 93(2) of the 2013 Act, notwithstanding the State’s contention that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 25.

Section 25 of the 2013 Act requires the Collector to make an award within twelve months of publication of the declaration under Section 19(1), subject to the Government’s power to extend the period; the State submitted that failure to make an award within time results in lapse of the acquisition.

Section 23-A of the Karnataka amendment provides for a consent award, and Section 30-A was invoked for the consent-award notification in this case.

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

No judicial precedents were cited.

The Court accepted the State’s memo and the Special Land Acquisition Officer’s affidavit stating that the acquisition had lapsed for the petitioners’ properties and that the preliminary and final notifications were also lapsed insofar as those properties were concerned.

As a result, the petitioners’ original request for a consent award and compensation no longer survived.

The Court rejected the State’s objection that Section 93(2) was unavailable because the lapse was attributed to Section 25: it reasoned that the State’s action nevertheless amounted to leaving the lands out of an acquisition in which possession had not been taken, bringing the petitioners’ claim for damage within Section 93(2).

The petitioners were permitted to apply to the Deputy Commissioner for damages under Section 93(2) within three weeks, and the Deputy Commissioner was directed to decide their representations in accordance with law within four weeks of receipt.

The memo and affidavit filed in connected W.P. No. 102725 of 2026 were held to apply to this petition as well, and the matter was listed for compliance on 30 November 2026.