Summary
Land acquired under the KIAD Act in 2003 for the Bengaluru-Mysuru Infrastructure Corridor was taken in 2005, but no compensation was paid for over two decades owing to the inaction of the State and KIADB. The Supreme Court agreed that a Special Land Acquisition Officer cannot shift the date for reckoning market value, a power only constitutional courts have. It held that the High Court should not have treated the landowners' appeal as premature, and, invoking Article 142 to protect their Article 300-A right, directed a fresh award at market value as on 22.04.2019.
Issues
- Whether a Special Land Acquisition Officer can, on his own, shift the date of the preliminary notification for reckoning the market value of acquired land.
- Whether the Division Bench rightly dismissed the landowners' writ appeal as premature after the Single Judge quashed the award and directed a fresh award with market value as on the preliminary notification date.
- Whether, given over two decades without compensation, the date for determining market value should be shifted, and to what date.
Provisions considered
- Section 11, Land Acquisition Act, 1894Approving the Single Judge, the Court accepted that market value is ordinarily taken as on the preliminary notification date, and that the SLAO or State Government cannot shift that date. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 52)
- Section 28, Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966The acquisition was made by preliminary notification under Section 28(1) in January 2003 and a final notification in July 2003, with possession taken in 2005 but no award until 2019. (¶¶ 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.13)
- Article 300-A, Constitution of IndiaThough no longer a fundamental right after the Forty-Fourth Amendment, the right to property is a constitutional and human right; no person may be deprived of property save by authority of law and without adequate compensation, and prolonged non-payment offends this right. (¶¶ 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 49, 54)
- Articles 32, 142 and 226, Constitution of IndiaOnly the Supreme Court (under Articles 32/142) or a High Court (under Article 226) may, in exceptional circumstances, shift the date for market value; the High Court should have exercised its Article 226 power, and the Supreme Court did so under Article 142. (¶¶ 17, 52, 53, 57)
Held
- A Special Land Acquisition Officer has no power to shift or postpone the date of the preliminary notification for determining market value; in exceptional circumstances only the Supreme Court under Articles 32/142 or a High Court under Article 226 can do so. The award of 22.04.2019, which shifted the date to 2011 on the Advocate General's opinion, was rightly quashed. (¶¶ 13, 15, 16, 17)
- The writ appeal was not premature: by directing the SLAO to determine compensation as on the preliminary notification date, the Single Judge had in effect refused the landowners' prayer for market value nearer the award date, so their cause of action survived and the Division Bench should have considered it. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23)
- The right to property remains a constitutional right under Article 300-A and a human right; acquisition under eminent domain carries a duty to pay compensation promptly, and the State cannot abdicate that duty. Because the purchasing power of money falls over time, determination and disbursal of compensation must be made with promptitude. (¶¶ 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48)
- The landowners, deprived of their residential plots without compensation for about 22 years through no fault of their own but owing to the lethargy of State and KIADB officers, could not be left with compensation at 2003 values, which would make Article 300-A a mockery; the High Court should have exercised its Article 226 power instead of relegating them to the SLAO again. (¶¶ 49, 50, 51, 52, 54)
- Invoking Article 142, the Court directed that compensation be determined at the market value prevailing on 22.04.2019, the date of the earlier award, noting also that quashing the acquisition would force a fresh acquisition under the 2013 Act at much greater public cost. (¶¶ 53, 55, 56, 57)
- The Court expressed no view on the inter se dispute between the State/KIADB and the project proponents over who bears the additional cost, which is governed by the Framework Agreement and other agreements; the proponents may pursue their remedies in law. (¶ 58)
Result
Appeal disposed of: the Division Bench judgment dated 22.11.2022 set aside and W.P. No. 1627 of 2021 allowed; SLAO directed to pass a fresh award at market value as on 22.04.2019 within two months after hearing the parties, with all statutory benefits; any award passed under the Single Judge's directions nullified; rights to seek a reference kept open; project proponents left free to pursue claims against the State/KIADB.