Similarly situated landowners are entitled to consent-award benefits absent evidence distinguishing them.

The petitioners’ lands were included in a preliminary notification issued under Section 11 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“2013 Act”) on 20 August 2022 for the Upper Krishna Project.

They sought a consent award and the benefit of the Government Order dated 9 October 2025, relying on orders in W.P. Nos. 100331 and 106191 of 2024, which had extended that benefit to other landowners.

The respondents did not dispute the earlier orders, but the project authority contended that the petitioners were not shown to be similarly situated; the State submitted that, unlike some earlier cases, no final notification had yet been issued in this case.

1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of the Government Order dated 9 October 2025 on the same basis as landowners in W.P. Nos. 100331 and 106191 of 2024.

2. Whether, given that only a preliminary notification had been issued, the respondents could be directed to proceed with the acquisition and grant an award or consent award.

Section 11 of the 2013 Act provides for a preliminary notification of the proposed acquisition; the Court noted that a final notification remained necessary before an award could be passed in this case.

The Court also applied the Government Order dated 9 October 2025 and followed its Coordinate Bench’s orders in W.P. Nos. 100331 and 106191 of 2024, which directed that the Government Order’s benefit be extended to the landowners concerned through a consent award in accordance with law.

The Court treated similarly situated landowners as entitled to consistent treatment, absent material establishing that the petitioners were not similarly placed.

The respondents produced no document showing that the petitioners were differently situated from the landowners who had obtained relief in the earlier writ petitions.

The Court therefore treated the petitioners as similarly situated and extended the same benefit.

Because this case had only reached the preliminary-notification stage, the Court recognised that the final notification had to be issued before the award or consent award could follow; it nevertheless directed the SLAO to act under the Government Order and complete the process expeditiously.

The petitioners were granted the benefit of the Government Order dated 9 October 2025 in terms of the orders in W.P. Nos. 100331 and 106191 of 2024, if not already granted.

They were directed to appear before the SLAO on 26 October 2026 at 11:00 a.m.; the SLAO was directed to act in accordance with the Government Order and disburse the award or consent-award amount as expeditiously as possible, and within one year of their first appearance.

If compliance within that period proved impossible, the State was required to seek an extension with valid reasons; the Court cautioned that any variance would be viewed seriously.