KIADB awards passed after 5 April 2022 must follow 2013 land compensation law, even if acquisition began earlier, Karnataka High Court rules

The petitioner’s land, including Survey No. 163/1/1 at Nandur-K village, was acquired under Sections 28(1) and 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (KIAD Act), by preliminary notification dated 9 December 2020 and final notification dated 23 November 2022.

The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) passed a general award on 26 May 2026 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The petitioner challenged the award on the ground that compensation should have been determined under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act), following the amendment to Section 30 of the KIAD Act.

He did not press his challenge to the acquisition notifications.

1. Whether the SLAO could pass the 26 May 2026 award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, when Section 30 of the KIAD Act had been substituted to apply specified provisions of the 2013 Act.

2. Whether the acquisition itself should be disturbed when the petitioner had expressly given up his challenge to the preliminary and final notifications.

Section 30 of the KIAD Act, as substituted by Karnataka Act No. 20 of 2020 with effect from 5 April 2022, incorporates specified provisions of the 2013 Act—including provisions concerning compensation—into the KIAD Act for acquisitions under that Act.

The Court held that those provisions apply to KIAD acquisitions from the effective date of the substitution.

It also relied on the coordinate Bench decision in Smt. Anitha and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others, W.P. No. 4627/2024, decided 27 September 2024, which held that a KIADB award passed after 5 April 2022 under the 1894 Act could not be sustained.

The award was made on 26 May 2026, after Section 30’s substitution took effect on 5 April 2022. Accordingly, the SLAO was required to apply the provisions of the 2013 Act incorporated into the KIAD Act, rather than determine compensation under the 1894 Act.

Applying the reasoning in Smt. Anitha, the Court concluded that the award was without jurisdiction and illegal.

The acquisition notifications were not examined on their merits because the petitioner had abandoned that challenge.

It directed the KIADB Land Acquisition Officer to pass a fresh award in accordance with the 2013 Act within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order.

Any amount already deposited or released to the land loser must be adjusted against the fresh award.

No order as to costs.