KIADB awards passed after April 2022 must follow 2013 land-acquisition compensation rules, Karnataka High Court rules

The petitioner’s land in Sy. No. 72, measuring three acres at Nandur(K), was notified for acquisition under Section 28 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (“KIAD Act”).

The preliminary notification was issued on 9 December 2020 and the final notification on 23 November 2022.

The Special Land Acquisition Officer (“SLAO”) passed a general award on 25 April 2025.

At the hearing, the petitioner abandoned the challenge to the acquisition notifications and confined the petition to challenging the award, contending that it had to be made under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“2013 Act”).

1. Whether the SLAO could pass the 25 April 2025 award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, rather than under the 2013 Act, following the substitution of Section 30 of the KIAD Act.

2. Whether the general award was liable to be set aside and a fresh award directed under the 2013 Act.

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—for land acquired under the KIAD Act.

The Court held that those provisions applied to KIAD acquisitions from the amendment’s effective date and relied on the coordinate Bench decision in Smt. Anitha and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others, W.P. No. 4627 of 2024, decided 27 September 2024, which held that an award made after 5 April 2022 could not be sustained if made under the 1894 Act.

Although the acquisition notifications pre-dated the amendment, the award was made on 25 April 2025, after substituted Section 30 had come into force.

The Court therefore treated the 2013 Act provisions incorporated into the KIAD Act as governing the award.

Applying the reasoning in Smt. Anitha, it concluded that the SLAO lacked authority to make the award under the 1894 Act and that the award was unsustainable.

The petitioner’s decision not to press the challenge to the acquisition meant that the acquisition itself remained undisturbed.

The KIADB Land Acquisition Officer was directed to pass a fresh award under the 2013 Act within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order.

Any amount already deposited or released was to be adjusted against the fresh award.