Karnataka HC Gives Land Officer 3 Months To Consider Farmers’ 2019 Compensation-Hike Requests And Refer If Needed, Warning Failure Could Bring Discipline

The petitioners’ lands in several villages in Chikkamagaluru District were acquired for a railway project following a preliminary notification dated 15 July 2017 and a final notification dated 14 August 2018.

The Land Acquisition Officer made awards on 19 November 2019.

The petitioners disputed the compensation and sought enhanced compensation, asking the Officer to refer their claims under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“2013 Act”).

They alleged that the requests had not been acted upon for several years, although claims of similarly situated landowners had been referred.

The petitions sought a direction requiring the Officer to make the references.

Section 64 of the 2013 Act provides the statutory route for a landowner to seek reference of a compensation dispute to the appropriate authority.

The Court emphasised that the Land Acquisition Officer has a duty to consider a landowner’s request for such a reference and that the reference procedure should be applied in a manner that enables adjudication of the claim.

No precedent was cited.

The Court did not determine whether the petitioners were entitled to enhanced compensation or resolve the question of interest for any period beyond 60 days after a request for reference.

The Court noted that the petitioners had disputed the awards and requested references, but the Officer had taken no steps since 2019.

The State’s submission that the petitioners had approached the Court belatedly did not explain the Officer’s failure to perform the statutory function; the State’s counsel also indicated that steps would be taken to refer the cases.

The Court therefore directed the Officer to consider the applications and, if necessary, refer them to the appropriate authority, without itself deciding the merits of the compensation claims.

The question of interest for any period beyond 60 days from the date of seeking reference was left open for the appropriate authority.

The Court further stated that failure to take proactive steps and make the references would be treated as grave misconduct, warranting disciplinary action by the Officer’s superior.