KIADB may pursue excess-compensation recovery only after considering the landowners’ objections and hearing them.

The petitioners challenged a notice dated 9 June 2026 issued by the KIADB Special Land Acquisition Officer, requiring them to appear and explain why they should not refund compensation allegedly paid in excess for acquisition of 2 acres 4 guntas in Sy. No. 71/2, Rabbanahalli Village.

The notice relied on a revenue order said to have reduced the recorded extent to 1 acre 28 guntas.

The petitioners maintained that the reduction had been rectified and that the extent stood restored to 2 acres 4 guntas; they also alleged that they had signed an affidavit agreeing to refund compensation without its contents being explained to them.

They sought to quash the notice and restrain recovery.

The State and KIADB opposed the petition, arguing that compensation was recoverable to the extent it exceeded the petitioners’ entitlement.

1. Whether the Court should interfere with the KIADB officer’s notice calling on the petitioners to explain why allegedly excess compensation should not be refunded.

2. Whether recovery could proceed before the petitioners had an opportunity to file objections and be heard on their entitlement to the compensation.

The acquisition was undertaken under Sections 28(1) and 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966.

The Court applied the principle that a landowner is entitled to compensation only to the extent of their entitlement and that an authority may seek recovery of compensation alleged to have been paid in excess.

In considering the recovery process, the Court required the petitioners to be given an opportunity to object and be heard, and directed that no precipitative recovery action be taken until the officer had considered their objections and documents.

No precedent was cited.

The Court noted that the petitioners had received compensation for 2 acres 4 guntas, while the revenue order relied on in the notice recorded a reduced extent of 1 acre 28 guntas.

On that basis, it held that the KIADB officer was entitled to call on the petitioners to explain why the alleged excess should not be repaid; the notice itself did not warrant interference.

The Court did not finally determine the effect of the petitioners’ claim that the extent had been restored or the validity of the disputed affidavit.

Instead, it preserved their opportunity to raise those matters through objections and supporting documents.

The petitioners were permitted to file objections, which the KIADB officer must consider after hearing them and reviewing the supporting documents before passing appropriate orders in accordance with law.

Until then, the officer must not take precipitative action to recover compensation from the petitioners.