Land Used For Road, Compensation Unpaid: Karnataka HC Orders Fresh 2013 Act Award And 12% Interest

In brief

The question

Whether the acquisition notification should be quashed when the acquired land had already been used to form the road.

The court held

The petition was allowed in part. The challenge to the acquisition notification was rejected, but respondent No. 2 was directed to pass a fresh award determining compensation as of 13 October 2026 under the 2013 Act, together with consequential benefits and interest at 12% per annum from the date of the order until payment.

It also directed

The fresh determination was to be completed within three months of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

01Facts

The petitioner’s lands in Sy. Nos. 26/1 and 38, Muginagondi village, were acquired for road formation following a preliminary notification dated 4 March 2011.

pp. 2–3

The petitioner objected to the acquisition and later challenged the final notification dated 29 March 2012, contending, among other things, that an existing road served the village and that the acquisition was unnecessary.

pp. 2–3

An award dated 30 August 2014 determined compensation of Rs. 1,80,021, but the amount was kept in revenue deposit; the respondents had neither offered it to the petitioner nor deposited it before the reference court.

pp. 3–5

By the time the petition was heard, the road had been formed on the acquired lands.

p. 4

02Issues

i.Whether the acquisition notification should be quashed when the acquired land had already been used to form the road.

pp. 4–6

ii.Whether the petitioner was entitled to a fresh determination of compensation, and on what basis, given that the award amount had not been offered or deposited.

pp. 4–7

03Law Applied

Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provide for notice to interested persons and inquiry into compensation; Section 31 requires payment or deposit of compensation in the manner prescribed by the Act.

pp. 3–5

The Court observed that merely keeping compensation in revenue deposit does not fulfil the purpose of compensating the landowner.

p. 5

Relying on Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz v. Government of Karnataka, (2025) 7 SCC 580, it applied the principle that, where prolonged State inaction and non-payment would otherwise undermine the landowner’s constitutional protection under Article 300-A, compensation may be determined by reference to a later date to secure just compensation, notwithstanding the acquisition authority’s lack of power to shift the valuation date.

pp. 5–6

The Court directed that the fresh award be made under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

p. 7

Provisions in the judgment · 5

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Section 6Section 9Section 10Section 12Section 31

04Reasoning

Because the land had already been used for the road, the Court considered that examining the validity of the acquisition notification would serve no practical purpose.

p. 5

The existing award did not resolve the compensation issue: the amount had not been offered to the petitioner, there was no evidence of refusal, and no deposit had been made before the reference court as required by Section 31.

pp. 4–5

Since the amount remained in revenue deposit, the Court relied on Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz to protect the landowner’s right to just compensation and ordered a fresh determination using the date of the order as the valuation date.

pp. 5–7