Farmers’ Higher-Compensation Plea Revived As Karnataka HC Orders SLAO To Await Appeal On Comparable Award

In brief

The question

1. Whether the SLAO could reject the petitioners’ Section 28A application solely because the Reference Court award relied upon was under appeal.

The court held

The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the SLAO’s order dated 3 September 2020, and restored the petitioners’ Section 28A application.

It also directed

It directed the SLAO to await the outcome of MFA No.102198/2022 and connected matters, and thereafter decide the application in accordance with law.

01Facts

The petitioners’ lands in Siddapura Village were acquired for the Teggi–Siddapur Lift Irrigation Project under a notification dated 9 August 2010.

p. 3 · p. 7

They received compensation at Rs.38,311 per acre.

p. 3 · p. 7

Relying on a Reference Court award of Rs.10,56,000 per acre for land in the same village acquired under the same notification, the petitioners applied for redetermination under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended in 1984.

pp. 3–4 · p. 7

The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) rejected the application on 3 September 2020 because the relied-upon award in LAC No.25/2018 was under appeal.

pp. 4–6

The petitioners challenged that rejection by writ petition.

02Issues

i.1. Whether the SLAO could reject the petitioners’ Section 28A application solely because the Reference Court award relied upon was under appeal.

pp. 4–5 · p. 8

ii.2. Whether the proper course was to restore the application and require the SLAO to await the outcome of the appeal before deciding it.

pp. 8–9

03Law Applied

Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended in 1984, provides a mechanism for redetermination of compensation by reference to an award of the court in a comparable acquisition.

pp. 7–9

The court held that where the award relied upon in a Section 28A application is under appeal, the SLAO should not reject the application solely for that reason; the appropriate course is to await the appellate outcome and then decide the application in accordance with law.

pp. 7–9

Provisions in the judgment · 12

Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 1984 12 provisions

Section 18Section 19Section 20Section 21Section 22Section 23Section 24Section 25Section 26Section 27Section 28Section 28A

04Reasoning

The petitioners relied on an award concerning land in the same village, acquired under the same notification and for the same project, as the basis for seeking redetermination.

pp. 3–4 · p. 7

The SLAO rejected the application only because that award was under appeal.

pp. 5–7

The Court held that this circumstance warranted awaiting the appeal’s outcome, not rejecting the application.

p. 8

Although a rejected request might ordinarily lead the petitioners to seek a reference under Sections 18 to 28, the stated reason for rejection made it appropriate to restore the Section 28A application and defer its determination.

p. 8