Supreme Court Directs Fresh Awards Using April 22, 2019 Market Rates and Quashes KIADB Award; Sets Aside Division Bench Order

A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan heard a civil appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 10338 of 2023 challenging the Karnataka High Court’s Division Bench order which dismissed a writ appeal by land‑owners aggrieved by an award dated 22 April 2019 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act (KIAD Act) in relation to the Bengaluru–Mysuru Infrastructure Corridor Project.

The Court allowed the appeal in part, quashed the SLAO’s award dated 22 April 2019 and set aside the Division Bench’s dismissal of the intra‑court appeal. While upholding the principle that market value is ordinarily to be reckoned as on the date of the preliminary notification and that a SLAO had no jurisdiction to unilaterally shift that date, the Court invoked its extraordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution to do “complete justice” in the exceptional facts of the case. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “We find that it is a fit case wherein this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution should direct shifting of the date for determination of the market value of the land in question of the appellants.” The Court further recorded the appellants’ long deprivation, observing that the landowners had been “deprived of their property without paying any compensation for the same in the said period of last twenty‑two years,” and directed the SLAO to pass fresh awards taking the market value prevailing as on 22 April 2019.

Background The dispute arose from acquisitions made for the Bengaluru‑Mysuru Infrastructure Corridor Project under a 1997 Framework Agreement and subsequent notifications by KIADB. The appellants purchased residential sites in Gottigere village between 1995 and 1997. A preliminary notification under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act issued on 29 January 2003; possession of the lands passed to KIADB/NICE in 2005, but awards were not immediately made. After years of delay and interlocutory litigation, the SLAO passed an award on 22 April 2019 which, relying on an Advocate‑General’s opinion and certain Supreme Court precedents, “postponed” the date of the preliminary notification to 2011 and applied 2011 guideline values to compute compensation. Project proponents challenged that award before the Karnataka High Court; the Single Judge quashed the 2019 award on the ground that a SLAO could not shift the date of the preliminary notification and that only this Court or a High Court, in exceptional circumstances, could do so. The Single Judge directed fresh awards and held compensation must be determined as on the date of the preliminary notification. A Division Bench dismissed the appellants’ intra‑court appeal as premature, because fresh awards had yet to be passed.

On appeal to the Supreme Court the landowners argued that prolonged inaction by the State and KIADB had caused severe prejudice and that exceptional relief was warranted by precedents such as Ram Chand and Tukaram Kana Joshi. Respondents contended that the grievance was premature and that any burden from delayed payment ought to be addressed between the State/KIADB and project proponents. The Supreme Court agreed that SLAOs could not shift the date but, taking note of almost 22 years of non‑payment and the public interest in avoiding relitigation or project disruption, exercised Article 142 to direct that the fresh awards be computed with reference to market value as on 22 April 2019. The Court directed the SLAO to pass fresh awards within two months, allowed statutory benefits to the appellants, kept open parties’ rights to challenge the fresh awards, and left any inter‑se claims between project proponents and the State/KIADB to be pursued in law.

Case No.: Civil Appeal No. ___ of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10338 of 2023); Citation: 2025 INSC 3 Case Title: Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz and Others v. Government of Karnataka and Others Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Shri R. Chandrachud, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Shri Atmaram N. S. Nadkarni, Senior Counsel (for Respondents No. 6 & 7); Shri Avishkar Singhvi, Additional Advocate General (for State of Karnataka); Shri Purushottam Sharma Tripathi (for Respondents Nos. 2–5)