Section 93(2) damages may be claimed when acquisition lapses before possession is taken.

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”) was issued on 2 April 2018 to acquire land for the Upper Krishna Project.

A final declaration under Section 19(1), dated 21 January 2022, included the petitioner’s property, CTS No. 211/3/2, measuring 181.57 sq. metres.

The petitioner agreed to a consent award, and a notification under Section 30-A of the Karnataka amendment to the 2013 Act was issued on 10 June 2024; however, no consent award followed.

The State submitted that no award had been made within the period prescribed by Section 25, that the acquisition had lapsed, and that an order dated 8 September 2026 recorded the lapse and withdrawal of consent.

The petitioner sought a direction to pass the consent award and pay compensation, and alternatively argued that she was entitled to damages under Section 93(2) of the 2013 Act.

1. Whether the petitioner’s request for a mandamus directing the authorities to pass a consent award and pay compensation remained live after the State asserted that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed.

2. Whether the petitioner could pursue a claim for damages under Section 93(2) of the 2013 Act following the lapse or withdrawal of the acquisition.

Section 25 of the 2013 Act requires an award to be made within twelve months of publication of the declaration under Section 19, subject to the Government’s power to extend the period; the State relied on that provision in asserting that the acquisition had lapsed.

Sections 23-A and 30-A of the Karnataka amendment were referred to in connection with consent awards and the notification recording consent.

Under Section 93(1), the appropriate Government may withdraw from an acquisition in circumstances permitted by that provision; Section 93(2) provides for the Collector to determine and pay compensation for damage suffered by the owner as a consequence of the acquisition notice or proceedings, together with reasonably incurred costs.

The judgment cites no precedent.

The Court accepted the State’s submission, supported by the memo and the Special Land Acquisition Officer’s affidavit, that no award had been made within the prescribed period and that the acquisition proceedings concerning the petitioner’s land had lapsed.

It therefore held that the requested mandamus to pass the consent award and pay compensation no longer survived.

On damages, the Court rejected the State’s contention that Section 93(2) was unavailable merely because the order described the acquisition as having lapsed under Section 25 rather than as a withdrawal under Section 93(1).

It reasoned that the effect was that the land was left out of the acquisition before possession had been taken, and allowed the petitioner to seek damages under Section 93(2).

The petitioner was permitted to apply to the Deputy Commissioner for damages under Section 93(2) within three weeks, and the Deputy Commissioner was directed to decide the representation within four weeks of receipt, in accordance with law.

The matter was listed for reporting compliance on 30 November 2026.