Karnataka HC Rejects Irrigation Beneficiary’s Challenge To Section 28-A Award, Says It May Seek Losses Allegedly Caused By SLAO Delay

In brief

The question

1. Whether the SLAO’s delay in deciding respondent No. 4’s Section 28-A application was a ground to quash the resulting award

The court held

The Court rejected the writ petition as devoid of merit and declined to quash the SLAO’s award.

It also directed

It left the petitioner at liberty to pursue appropriate remedies against the SLAO concerning any loss allegedly caused by the delay

01Facts

The petitioner, the beneficiary of the land acquisition, challenged the Special Land Acquisition Officer’s (SLAO) order dated 30 June 2022, which redetermined compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Respondent No. 4’s lands had been acquired for the petitioner’s benefit. Respondent No. 4 applied for redetermination on 29 December 2007, relying on a judgment in L.A.C. No. 132/1995 and connected matters

¶ 6

After the SLAO did not act on that application, respondent No. 4 sought relief in W.P. No. 200209/2022. By order dated 20 January 2022, the High Court directed the SLAO to consider the application within two months and permitted a fresh application; the SLAO subsequently passed the impugned award

¶ 7

The petitioner contended that the delay in passing the award unfairly burdened it with interest arising from the authority’s inaction

¶ 2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the SLAO’s delay in deciding respondent No. 4’s Section 28-A application was a ground to quash the resulting award

¶ 2, 8

ii.2. Whether the petitioner could seek relief in this writ petition on the basis that it would bear the financial burden arising from the authority’s delay

¶ 2, 9

03Law Applied

Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provides for redetermination of compensation in specified circumstances by reference to an award of the court.

The Court also applied the principle that where a statutory authority has failed to act on an application and the resulting decision is made pursuant to a court’s direction, a beneficiary’s grievance concerning the authority’s delay may be pursued through appropriate remedies against the responsible authority.

Provisions in the judgment · 1

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Section 28

04Reasoning

Respondent No. 4 had applied for redetermination in 2007, and the SLAO’s failure to act had compelled him to approach the Court for a direction.

¶ 6–7

The impugned award followed the Court’s direction and was passed under Section 28-A

¶ 8

The petitioner’s complaint concerned the consequences of the SLAO’s delay, rather than establishing a basis to invalidate the award. The Court therefore held that any claim for loss allegedly caused by the delay could be pursued against the concerned authority through appropriate remedies

¶ 9