Karnataka High Court orders 2023-based compensation for land acquired in 2007 after decade-long delay in depositing payment

The petitioner claimed ownership of lands at Jonnahalli acquired for an aerospace project under preliminary and final notifications dated 9 January 2007 and 15 May 2007, respectively.

He had participated in the acquisition proceedings and consented to the acquisition, but disputed the compensation determined under a general award.

The respondents stated that an award was passed in 2013 and that compensation was deposited in the Civil Court on 1 June 2023.

The petitioner challenged the notifications and award notices, and alternatively sought compensation at the consent-award rate or other just compensation

The Court found that the acquisition could not be undone because the land had already been used for its intended purpose, but noted the delay in making and depositing the award and the inadequacy of the compensation

Whether the petitioner, having consented to the acquisition and the land having been used for the project, could obtain quashing of the preliminary and final notifications

Whether the award notices and compensation determination could stand despite the delay in depositing compensation and the apparent inadequacy of the amount

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a fresh determination of compensation, and on what basis and from what date

The Court considered Sections 28(1), 28(4)–(7), and 29–30 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, governing acquisition, vesting, possession, and compensation; it also referred to the award notices issued under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

It relied on Article 300-A of the Constitution, which protects the right to property and requires that deprivation occur in accordance with law, and on Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz v. Government of Karnataka, (2025) 7 SCC 580, concerning the injustice of determining compensation by an outdated market-value date after prolonged State inaction

The Court directed a fresh award under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, with statutory benefits and interest.

The petitioner’s consent to acquisition, coupled with the completed use of the land for the project, meant that setting aside the acquisition notifications would serve no useful purpose; the challenge to those notifications was therefore rejected

However, the respondents gave no explanation for the delay in passing the award and depositing compensation, and the Court considered the general award inadequate in light of the petitioner’s prolonged deprivation of compensation

Applying the reasoning in Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz, the Court treated the date of deposit—1 June 2023—as the appropriate date for determining market value, rather than allowing the petitioner to remain bound by the earlier determination.

The challenge to the preliminary and final acquisition notifications was rejected, but the specified award notices were quashed

The Special Deputy Commissioner was directed to make a fresh award for the petitioner’s lands, determine market value as of 1 June 2023 under the 2013 Act, and award statutory benefits and interest at 12% per annum from that date until payment

The petitioner may also seek developed land under the Government Order dated 23 February 2021; any such representation must be decided within six months.