Karnataka HC Quashes Compensation Award For Bengaluru Plot Claimants Not Served Notice, Gives Them Chance To Seek Consent Award

In brief

The question

1. Whether the general award and consequential reference could stand where the petitioners had not been served notice or afforded an opportunity to establish their title and claim to compensation.

The court held

The petition was allowed.

It also directed

The general award was quashed insofar as it concerned the petitioners’ property, as was the reference under Section 77(2) in LAC No. 21/2026.

The petitioners may submit a representation expressing consent to an award and produce supporting title documents within 30 days of receiving the certified order; the second respondent must consider the claim and pass a consent award within three months of the representation.

If consensus is not reached, entitlement or apportionment is disputed, or objections remain unresolved, the original general award will revive, the compensation must be redeposited before the competent Civil Court, and the petitioners may seek enhancement in accordance with law.

Any amount already deposited before the Civil Court may be withdrawn.

01Facts

The petitioners claimed joint ownership of 33.15 sq. m. in Sy. No. 109/2, Horamavu Village, acquired for Corridor-4 of the Bengaluru Sub-Urban Railway Project.

p. 3

The land was notified under Sections 28(1) and 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (KIAD Act).

p. 3

The second respondent passed a general award and directed that compensation be deposited before the Civil Court because the petitioners had not produced documents establishing title.

pp. 4–5

The respondents did not dispute that notice had not been served and stated that the petitioners’ claim could be considered upon production of the requisite documents.

p. 6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the general award and consequential reference could stand where the petitioners had not been served notice or afforded an opportunity to establish their title and claim to compensation.

pp. 5–6

ii.2. Whether the petitioners could be given an opportunity to seek a consent award under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act, subject to proof of their right, title and interest.

pp. 5–6

03Law Applied

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to grant appropriate writ relief, including certiorari and mandamus; Article 227 provides the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction.

p. 2

Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act provides for a consent award.

p. 3, 7

Section 77(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act) concerns the reference challenged in these proceedings.

pp. 3–4

The Court’s order applied the requirement that affected claimants be afforded an opportunity to establish their entitlement before their compensation claim is determined; it cited no precedent.

pp. 5–7

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Section 77

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1966 Section 29 Section 28

04Reasoning

The petitioners’ challenge was limited to the award and consequential reference concerning their property; they had not challenged the acquisition notifications.

p. 3, 5

The respondents’ concession that notice had not been served supported the petitioners’ claim that they lacked an opportunity to produce title documents and present their compensation claim.

p. 6

In light of that concession, the Court set aside the award and reference insofar as they concerned the petitioners, while allowing the petitioners to submit documents and seek a consent award under Section 29(2).

pp. 6–7