Karnataka HC Gives Officials A Year To Act On Four UKP Landowners’ Requests For 2025 Consent-Award Benefits

In brief

The question

Whether the petitioners could obtain consideration of their requests for the benefit of the Government Order dated 9 October 2025, notwithstanding the State’s contention that the 2022 preliminary notification had lapsed.

The court held

The writ petitions were allowed.

It also directed

The Government was directed to consider and act on the petitioners’ representations in accordance with law, and the petitioners were permitted to appear before the concerned SLAO on 20 November 2026.

The SLAO was directed to take action within one year from the petitioners’ first appearance.

If compliance could not be completed within that period, the State could seek an extension for valid reasons.

If an adverse order or endorsement issued, the petitioners could pursue remedies available under the Act, including under Section 93(2).

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.

pp. 7–8, paras 2–4

They sought completion of the joint measurement process, issuance of a final notification under Section 19(1), and consent awards applying the Government Order dated 9 October 2025, which fixed rates for consent awards.

pp. 7–8, paras 2–4

The State submitted that the statutory period for issuing a final notification had expired and the preliminary notification had lapsed; it also contended that a consent award required a final notification.

pp. 8, paras 5–7

The petitioners relied on an affidavit filed by a Principal Secretary in separate contempt proceedings concerning the same project.

pp. 9–10, paras 8–10

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioners could obtain consideration of their requests for the benefit of the Government Order dated 9 October 2025, notwithstanding the State’s contention that the 2022 preliminary notification had lapsed.

pp. 8–10, paras 5–12

ii.Whether the Court should direct the authorities to issue a final notification and pass consent awards, or instead direct consideration of the petitioners’ representations in accordance with law.

pp. 10–11, para 12 and order

03Law Applied

Section 19(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 governs the time for issuing a final declaration following a preliminary notification; the State argued that the notification must issue within 12 months unless the period is extended.

pp. 8, paras 5–6

The Court also referred to Section 93(2) of the Act as a possible remedy concerning damages or otherwise if an adverse order or endorsement were issued.

p. 11, order (iii)

The Government Order dated 9 October 2025 provided the policy framework for the petitioners’ requests for consent-award compensation.

pp. 7–8, paras 2–4

No judicial precedent was cited.

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Section 19 Section 93

04Reasoning

The Court noted the dispute over whether the preliminary notification had lapsed and whether a consent award could be made without a final notification, but did not resolve those questions by directing issuance of a final notification or award.

pp. 8–10, paras 5–10

Instead, it directed the Government to act in accordance with law on the petitioners’ representations concerning the 9 October 2025 Government Order, if its benefit had not already been granted.

pp. 10–11, para 12 and order (i)

The petitioners were permitted to appear before the SLAO with relevant documents, who was directed to take action under the Government Order and in accordance with law.

pp. 10–11, para 12 and order (i)