Lapse of acquisition for failure to award does not bar landowners’ Section 93(2) damages claims.

A preliminary notification under Section 11(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“2013 Act”) proposed acquisition for the Upper Krishna Project on 2 April 2018. A final declaration under Section 19(1) followed on 21 January 2022, covering the petitioners’ 52.21 sq. m. property.

After the landowners agreed to the Government’s consent-award rates, a notification under Section 30-A of the Karnataka amendment to the 2013 Act was issued on 10 June 2024; however, no award was made.

The petitioners sought a mandamus directing the authorities to make a consent award and pay compensation.

1. Whether the petitioners’ request for a direction to make a consent award and pay compensation remained for consideration after the State stated that the acquisition had lapsed.

2. Whether the petitioners could seek damages under Section 93(2) of the 2013 Act where the State characterised the acquisition as having lapsed under Section 25, rather than as a withdrawal under Section 93(1).

Section 25 of the 2013 Act requires the Collector to make an award within twelve months of publication of the declaration under Section 19; absent an award within that period, and absent an extension by the Government, the acquisition proceedings lapse.

Section 23-A of the Karnataka amendment provides for a consent award, and Section 30-A was invoked for the consent-acquisition process in this case.

Under Section 93(1), the appropriate Government may withdraw from an acquisition where possession has not been taken; Section 93(2) requires the Collector, upon such withdrawal, to determine and pay compensation for damage caused by the notice or proceedings, together with reasonably incurred costs.

The State’s memo and the Special Land Acquisition Officer’s affidavit stated that no award had been made within the Section 25 period, no extension had been granted, and the acquisition had lapsed in respect of the petitioners’ land.

On that basis, the Court held that the requested mandamus to make a consent award no longer survived. It rejected the State’s contention that Section 93(2) was unavailable merely because the notification described the acquisition as lapsed under Section 25: since possession had not been taken, the effect of the State’s action was to leave the land out of the acquisition, bringing the petitioners’ claim for damages under Section 93(2) into consideration.

The petitioners were given liberty to apply to the concerned Deputy Commissioner for damages under Section 93(2) within three weeks, and the Deputy Commissioner was directed to consider the representations within four weeks of receipt, in accordance with law.

The memo and affidavit filed in the connected petition were held applicable to this petition, and the matter was listed for reporting compliance on 30 November 2026.