01Facts
The petitioners’ lands in Budni K.D. village had been proposed for acquisition for the Upper Krishna Project under a preliminary notification dated 20 June 2022. No final notification had been issued.
¶ 2–4, 6The petitioners sought completion of the joint measurement process, issuance of a final notification, and consent awards applying the Government Order dated 9 October 2025, which fixed rates for consent awards.
¶ 2–4, 6The State submitted that the statutory period for issuing a final notification had expired and that a consent award required a final notification; the petitioners relied on an affidavit filed by a Principal Secretary in separate contempt proceedings concerning the same project.
¶ 5, 7–1002Issues
i.Whether the petitioners could obtain directions for consideration of their requests for the benefit of the Government Order dated 9 October 2025, including action toward consent awards, despite the absence of a final notification.
¶ 3–4, 7, 10–12ii.Whether the Government should be directed to take action on the petitioners’ representations within a specified period.
¶ 1203Law Applied
Section 19(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, was invoked in relation to the time limit for issuing a final notification after the preliminary notification.
¶ 5The Court directed action in accordance with law and the Government Order dated 9 October 2025, if its benefit had not already been granted.
¶ 12It also identified Section 93(2) of the Act as a possible statutory remedy in the event of an adverse order or endorsement.
¶ 12Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Section 19Section 93
04Reasoning
The State contended that the preliminary notification had lapsed because no final notification was issued within the prescribed period, and that a consent award could not be made without a final notification.
¶ 5–7The petitioners relied on the Government’s undertaking in separate contempt proceedings to issue a final notification and thereafter consider consent awards, while the State maintained that the affidavit related to different notifications and that acquisition would proceed year by year under the later policy.
¶ 8–10Rather than conclusively deciding the effect of the lapse of time or ordering a final notification or award, the Court directed the Government and the SLAO to consider and act on the petitioners’ representations in accordance with law and the 9 October 2025 Government Order.
¶ 1205Holding
The writ petitions were allowed.
¶ 12The petitioners were permitted to appear before the concerned SLAO on 20 November 2026 with relevant documents.
¶ 12The SLAO was directed to take action concerning their lands in accordance with law and the Government Order dated 9 October 2025, within one year from the petitioners’ first appearance.
¶ 12If unable to comply within that period, the State may seek an extension for valid reasons.
¶ 12If an adverse order or endorsement is issued, the petitioners may pursue remedies available under the Act, including under Section 93(2).
¶ 12Original Court PDF
SUDHA KOPPAD W/O BHIMAPPA BASAVANN TAMPALvsTHE SECRETARY
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
