Karnataka High CourtAdministrative and Public LawProperty and Real Estate Law

Karnataka HC Orders Fresh 2013 Act Compensation Awards For Landowners, Quashing KIADB’s Post-2022 Awards Under 1894 Act

SRI SHASHIDHARv.THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Karnataka HC Orders Fresh 2013 Act Compensation Awards For Landowners, Quashing KIADB’s Post-2022 Awards Under 1894 Act. SRI SHASHIDHAR vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

1. Whether awards made after the substitution of Section 30 of the KIAD Act on 5 April 2022 could lawfully determine compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where the preliminary and final notifications had been issued before that date.

The court held

The writ petitions were allowed. The general awards dated 22 December 2025 and 13 March 2026 were set aside insofar as they related to the petitioners.

It also directed

The KIADB Land Acquisition Officer was directed to pass fresh awards in accordance with the 2013 Act within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order. Any amount already deposited or released to the landowners must be adjusted against the fresh awards.

01Facts

The petitioners’ lands in Nandur-K village were acquired under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (KIAD Act). Preliminary notifications were issued on 9 December 2020 and final notifications on 23 November 2022.

pp. 6, 9–10

The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) subsequently made general awards on 22 December 2025 in two petitions and on 13 March 2026 in the third, applying the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioners challenged the awards, contending that compensation had to be determined under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, as incorporated into the KIAD Act.

pp. 6, 9–10

02Issues

i.1. Whether awards made after the substitution of Section 30 of the KIAD Act on 5 April 2022 could lawfully determine compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where the preliminary and final notifications had been issued before that date.

pp. 10–12

ii.2. Whether the impugned awards should be set aside and fresh awards made under the 2013 Act as incorporated into the KIAD Act.

pp. 12–14

03Law Applied

Section 30 of the KIAD Act, as substituted by Karnataka Act 20 of 2020 with effect from 5 April 2022, provides that specified provisions of the 2013 Act—including provisions relating to compensation and the First Schedule—are deemed to form part of the KIAD Act for acquisitions under that Act.

pp. 11–12

The Court applied the principle that the substituted Section 30 governs awards made after its effective date, and relied on Smt. Anitha and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others, W.P. No. 4627/2024 (27 September 2024), which held that post-5 April 2022 awards under the 1894 Act could not be sustained.

pp. 12–13

Provisions in the judgment · 22 · Linked ones open on LawLens

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1966 Section 30Section 28

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 20 provisionsSection 23Section 26Section 27Section 28Section 29Section 30Section 64Section 65Section 69Section 72Section 73Section 74Section 75Section 76Section 77Section 78Section 79Section 80Section 96Section 1

04Reasoning

Although the preliminary and final notifications pre-dated the substitution of Section 30, the impugned awards were made after 5 April 2022, when the substituted provision had taken effect. The Court therefore held that the SLAO could not determine compensation in those awards under the 1894 Act; the awards were required to apply the provisions of the 2013 Act incorporated into the KIAD Act.

pp. 10–13

Following the reasoning in Smt. Anitha, the Court concluded that the awards were unlawful and liable to be set aside.

pp. 10–13

05Holding

The writ petitions were allowed. The general awards dated 22 December 2025 and 13 March 2026 were set aside insofar as they related to the petitioners.

pp. 13–14

The KIADB Land Acquisition Officer was directed to pass fresh awards in accordance with the 2013 Act within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order. Any amount already deposited or released to the landowners must be adjusted against the fresh awards.

pp. 13–14
Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

SRI SHASHIDHARvsTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Karnataka High Court · October 27, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment