Karnataka HC Revives Landowners’ Higher-Compensation Claim, Directs Officer to Await Appeal on Comparable Award

In brief

The question

Whether the SLAO could reject the petitioners’ Section 28A application solely because an appeal against the relied-upon Reference Court award was pending.

The court held

The Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the SLAO’s order dated 3 September 2020, and restored the petitioners’ Section 28A application.

It also directed

It directed the SLAO to await the outcome of MFA No. 102198/2022 and connected matters and thereafter decide the application in accordance with law.

01Facts

The petitioners claimed joint ownership of land in R.S. No. 157/B at Siddapura Village, acquired for the Teggi–Siddapur Lift Irrigation Project under a notification dated 9 August 2010.

¶ 1–2 · p. 2

They were awarded compensation at Rs. 38,311 per acre.

¶ 1–2 · p. 2

Seeking enhancement under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, they relied on a Reference Court award in LAC No. 15/2018, concerning land in the same village acquired under the same notification for the same purpose, which fixed compensation at Rs. 10,56,000 per acre.

¶ 2–3 · pp. 2–3

The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) rejected their application because an appeal against that award was pending.

¶ 3–5 · pp. 3–4

The petitioners challenged the rejection in this writ petition.

¶ 3–5 · pp. 3–4

02Issues

i.Whether the SLAO could reject the petitioners’ Section 28A application solely because an appeal against the relied-upon Reference Court award was pending.

¶ 3–5 · pp. 3–4

ii.Whether the appropriate course was to restore the application and have the SLAO determine it after the appeal outcome.

¶ 8–10 · pp. 6–7

03Law Applied

Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provides a mechanism for a person whose acquired land is covered by the same notification to seek redetermination of compensation by reference to an award of the court in another landowner’s case.

¶ 8–9 · pp. 6–7

The Court held that where the Section 28A application relies on an award that is under appeal, the SLAO should not reject the application merely because of that pending appeal; the application should instead be kept for consideration until the appeal is decided.

¶ 8–9 · pp. 6–7

The Court also noted that, ordinarily, rejection of the application could lead the applicant to seek a reference under Sections 18 to 28 of the Act, but considered that course inappropriate where the rejection itself rested on the pending appeal.

¶ 8 · p. 6

Provisions in the judgment · 12

Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 1984 12 provisions

Section 28ASection 18Section 19Section 20Section 21Section 22Section 23Section 24Section 25Section 26Section 27Section 28

04Reasoning

The petitioners relied on an award concerning land acquired under the same notification, in the same village, and for the same project.

¶ 7–8 · pp. 6–7

Since the SLAO rejected their application solely because that award was under appeal, the Court concluded that the officer should have awaited the appeal’s outcome rather than rejecting the application on that ground.

¶ 7–8 · pp. 6–7

The Court accepted the State’s submission that the application could be reconsidered after the appeal in MFA No. 102198/2022 and connected matters was decided.

¶ 9 · p. 7