Kalaburagi Ring-Road Landowners To Receive ₹170/Sq Ft; Karnataka HC Rejects KRDCL Challenge, Orders Payment Within 6 Months

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Land Acquisition Officer could apply the ₹170-per-square-foot rate determined in the reference proceedings when re-determining compensation under Section 28-A, despite KRDCL’s contention that the lands were agricultural.

The court held

The Court allowed the landowners’ petitions and dismissed KRDCL’s petitions challenging the Section 28-A awards.

It also directed

It issued a mandamus directing respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to pay the compensation to the landowners within six months; there was no order as to costs.

01Facts

The State acquired lands in Hirapur and other villages under notifications dated 3 March 2005 and 25 July 2005 for the Kalaburagi ring road. The Land Acquisition Officer initially fixed compensation at ₹10,76,652 per acre.

pp. 26–29

In LAC No. 470/2012, the Reference Court fixed the market value at ₹170 per sq. ft.; that rate was subsequently applied in LAC No. 1/2021 to land acquired under the same notification for the same project.

pp. 26–29

The landowners applied under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the Officer re-determined compensation at ₹170 per sq. ft. The beneficiary, Karnataka Road Development Corporation Ltd. (KRDCL), challenged several such awards, contending that the subject lands were agricultural whereas the reference award concerned non-agricultural land. The landowners separately sought payment of the compensation awarded.

pp. 22–28

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Land Acquisition Officer could apply the ₹170-per-square-foot rate determined in the reference proceedings when re-determining compensation under Section 28-A, despite KRDCL’s contention that the lands were agricultural.

pp. 23, 27–29

ii.2. Whether the landowners were entitled to a mandamus directing payment of the compensation awarded under Section 28-A.

p. 25, 33

03Law Applied

Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, permits re-determination of compensation for qualifying landowners by reference to the compensation awarded by the court in a reference concerning land covered by the same notification.

pp. 30–33

The Court applied the principle that similarly situated landowners whose lands were acquired under the same notification for the same purpose may receive the same compensation.

pp. 30–33

It relied on Karnataka Road Development Corporation Ltd. v. Putalabai W/o Annarao Police Patil (W.P. No. 200652/2023, order dated 5 June 2024), which upheld similar re-determination under Section 28-A, and distinguished The Chief Administrative Officer, Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Ors., on the facts.

pp. 30–33

Provisions in the judgment · 4

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Section 28Section 4Section 6Section 18

04Reasoning

The Court found that the subject lands and those considered in LAC Nos. 470/2012 and 1/2021 were acquired under the same notification for the ring road and shared the same non-agricultural potential.

pp. 28–33

The reference proceedings had considered the lands’ location, surrounding development, and evidence, and had fixed the rate at ₹170 per sq. ft. The Court further noted that the beneficiary had not established that the subject lands were materially dissimilar.

pp. 28–33

The earlier dismissal of KRDCL’s challenge to a comparable Section 28-A award supported applying the same compensation rate here. Given the awards in the landowners’ favour, the Court directed payment within a specified period.

pp. 28–33