Similarly situated landowners must receive consent-award benefits after issuance of the final notification.

The petitioners, landowners of Shirahatti, challenged the respondents’ failure to pass an award concerning their lands, which were included in a preliminary acquisition notification dated 2 November 2022 issued under Section 11(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, for the Upper Krishna Project.

They had submitted representations on 4 December 2023 and 19 May 2026, stating that they were willing to accept a consent award, but no action followed.

They sought directions to pass an award and pay compensation, including amounts for the period of possession, or alternatively to proceed with requisition according to law.

The Court considered earlier orders in W.P. Nos. 100331 and 106191 of 2024, which had extended the benefit of the Government Order dated 9 October 2025 to similarly situated landowners.

1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of the Government Order dated 9 October 2025, as granted to landowners in the earlier writ petitions.

2. Whether the respondents should be directed to complete the acquisition process and disburse an award or consent award, given that only a preliminary notification had been issued.

The acquisition was initiated under Section 11(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which provides for a preliminary notification.

The Court applied the Government Order dated 9 October 2025 and its earlier orders in W.P. Nos. 100331 and 106191 of 2024, which extended the Government Order’s benefits to similarly situated landowners, including through consent awards.

Where only a preliminary notification has been issued, the final notification must be issued before an award or consent award can be made.

The respondents did not dispute the applicability of the earlier orders, and the respondent No. 7’s assertion that the petitioners were not similarly situated was unsupported by any document.

The Court therefore treated the petitioners as similarly situated to the landowners who had received the benefit of the Government Order.

Because this case had reached only the preliminary-notification stage, the Court recognised that a final notification was first required; it nevertheless directed the SLAO, after the petitioners appeared, to act under the Government Order and proceed to disburse the award or consent award.

The Court directed that the petitioners receive the benefits of the Government Order dated 9 October 2025 in accordance with its earlier orders; they were to appear before the concerned SLAO on 16 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 the petitioners’ first appearance.

Any request by the State for additional time must be supported by valid reasons; non-compliance or variance from the directions would be viewed seriously.