Facts
The petitioners’ lands in Nandur-K village were acquired by KIADB.
Source reference: no citationPreliminary notifications were issued on 9 December 2020 and final notifications on 23 November 2022.
Source reference: no citationKIADB passed general awards on 8 August 2025 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Source reference: no citationThe petitioners challenged those awards, contending that the substituted Section 30 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (KIAD Act) required compensation to be determined under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act).
Source reference: p. 9–10The respondents argued that the applicable law should be determined by the date of the preliminary notification.
Source reference: p. 9Issues
1. Whether KIADB could pass the awards under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 when the awards were made after the substitution of Section 30 of the KIAD Act.
Source reference: p. 9–112. Whether the impugned awards should be set aside and fresh awards made under the 2013 Act.
Source reference: p. 11–12Law Applied
Section 30 of the KIAD Act, as substituted by Karnataka Act No. 20 of 2020 with effect from 5 April 2022, makes specified provisions of the 2013 Act—including provisions concerning compensation and related matters—applicable to acquisitions under the KIAD Act.
Source reference: p. 10In Sri Rajashekhar v. State of Karnataka, W.P. No. 203892 of 2026, decided 24 September 2026, the Court held that where an award is passed after the substituted Section 30 took effect, the award must be made under the 2013 Act; an award under the 1894 Act cannot be sustained.
Source reference: p. 10–11The Court also relied on the same approach stated in Smt. Anitha, as quoted in Sri Rajashekhar.
Source reference: p. 11Reasoning
The Court treated the date of the award—not the earlier preliminary notification—as decisive for determining the governing compensation regime.
Source reference: p. 9–12Although the preliminary and final notifications pre-dated the substituted Section 30’s effective date, the awards were made on 8 August 2025, after that provision had taken effect.
Source reference: p. 9–12Applying Sri Rajashekhar, the Court concluded that KIADB could not then award compensation under the 1894 Act and was required to make fresh awards under the 2013 Act.
Source reference: p. 9–12Holding
The Court allowed both petitions and set aside the general awards dated 8 August 2025.
It directed the Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, to pass fresh awards for the subject lands in accordance with the 2013 Act within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order.
Source reference: p. 12Any amount already deposited or released to the landowners is to be adjusted against the fresh awards.
Source reference: p. 12No order was made as to costs.
Source reference: p. 12Acts & Sections Cited
22 provisions across 2 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT ACT, 19662
Original Court PDF
ERANNA HIREGOUDvsTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
