Landowners may recover equitable damages for pre-notification deprivation of beneficial enjoyment caused by reservoir submergence.

The connected petitions arose from damage awards made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) concerning lands affected by the Malaprabha Reservoir Project.

The landowners sought payment of the awards, consequential benefits and interest; Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited (KNNL), the beneficiary, sought to quash several awards.

The underlying claims concerned recurring submergence and backwater effects allegedly impairing beneficial enjoyment of the lands before issuance of notifications under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The Court recorded that the common issue was covered by a Coordinate Bench decision dated 10 July 2026 in W.P. No. 106472/2025 and connected matters, and reproduced its reasoning and operative order.

1. Whether the SLAO could award equitable damages for the period before a Section 4(1) notification, where reservoir submergence or backwater effects allegedly impaired the landowners’ beneficial enjoyment of their lands.

2. Whether landowners could pursue equitable damages for that anterior period after a reference court had declined statutory interest for the same period.

3. Whether the connected landowners were entitled to implementation and release of the damage amounts determined by the SLAO.

Under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, statutory interest under Sections 28 and 34 ordinarily runs from the point at which compensation becomes payable; it is not available under those provisions for a period before acquisition proceedings, subject to statutory situations such as the invocation of Section 17.

However, where the State takes possession or otherwise deprives an owner of use or beneficial enjoyment before a Section 4(1) notification, the owner may claim rent or damages for use and occupation, distinct from statutory interest.

The Coordinate Bench relied on *R.L. Jain v. DDA*, *Lila Ghosh v. State of West Bengal*, *Union of India v. Budh Singh*, *Satinder Singh v. Umrao Singh*, and the principles in *Karigowda*, *Madhishetti Ramul* and *Balwan Singh*.

It also held that recurring or intermittent submergence may impair beneficial enjoyment even where cultivation continued in some seasons or areas.

The Court treated the petitions as governed by the Coordinate Bench ruling, which distinguished statutory interest from equitable damages for prior deprivation.

That ruling considered reservoir-level records, evidence of recurring backwater effects, earlier proceedings, and the SLAO’s consideration of the parties’ material.

It concluded that continued or seasonal cultivation did not, by itself, disprove intermittent submergence or reduced agricultural utility, and that the awards were not shown to be wholly unsupported by evidence.

It further held that a later claim for equitable damages was not barred merely because statutory interest had previously been refused, since the claims rested on different legal bases.

The present Court disposed of the petitions in light of that ruling.

In the ruling reproduced by the Court, KNNL’s challenges to the damage awards were dismissed, the connected landowners’ petitions seeking release of the awarded amounts were allowed, and the awards were confirmed.

KNNL was directed to deposit any unpaid damage amount, with accrued interest, before the SLAO within eight weeks; failing deposit, the amount would carry interest at 6% until realization.