Karnataka High Court lets landowners seek damages after acquisition proceedings lapsed following an eight-year wait

A preliminary notification under Section 11(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“the 2013 Act”) proposed acquiring the petitioners’ lands for the Upper Krishna Project on 2 April 2018. A final declaration under Section 19(1) followed on 21 January 2022.

After the landowners agreed to a consent award, a notification was issued on 10 June 2024 under Section 30-A of the Karnataka amendment to the 2013 Act. The petitioners sought a mandamus requiring the respondents to pass the consent award and pay compensation.

The State submitted that no award had been made within the period prescribed by Section 25, that the acquisition had lapsed, and that it had issued an order dated 8 September 2026 withdrawing from the acquisition under Section 93(1).

Whether the petitioners’ request for a mandamus to pass a consent award and pay compensation remained live after the State asserted that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed.

Whether the petitioners could seek compensation for damage and costs under Section 93(2) of the 2013 Act, notwithstanding the State’s contention that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 25 rather than been withdrawn under Section 93(1).

Section 25 of the 2013 Act requires the Collector to make an award within twelve months from publication of the declaration under Section 19; the appropriate Government may extend that period in accordance with the statutory proviso, and failure to make an award within the applicable period results in lapse of the acquisition proceedings.

Section 23-A of the Karnataka amendment concerns consent awards, while Section 30-A was the provision under which the consent-related notification was issued.

Under Section 93(1), the appropriate Government may withdraw from an acquisition where possession has not been taken; Section 93(2) provides for the Collector to determine and pay compensation for damage caused by the notice or proceedings, together with reasonably incurred costs.

The State’s memo and the Special Land Acquisition Officer’s affidavit stated that the award had not been made within the Section 25 period and that the acquisition had lapsed; the Court therefore held that the requested mandamus to pass the consent award and pay compensation no longer survived.

On the petitioners’ claim under Section 93(2), the Court rejected the State’s argument that the provision was unavailable because the acquisition had lapsed under Section 25. It reasoned that the State’s action, though described as a lapse, amounted in substance to leaving the lands out of an acquisition where possession had not been taken.

The Court did not determine the damages claim on its merits, but allowed the petitioners to seek such relief from the Deputy Commissioner.

The petitioners were granted liberty to make representations to the Deputy Commissioner for damages under Section 93(2) within three weeks; the Deputy Commissioner was directed to consider them in accordance with law within four weeks of receipt.

The memo and affidavit were stated to apply to the writ petitions tagged with this case, and the matter was listed for reporting compliance on 30 November 2026.