# Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz and Others v. Government of Karnataka and Others

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 3
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-01-02
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2025
- **Bench:** B.R. Gavai, K.V. Viswanathan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/bernard-francis-joseph-vaz-and-others-v-government-of-karnataka-and-others-38747
- **Pages:** 40

## Headnote

The Lands of appellants herein were acquired and they were
deprived of their property without paying any compensation for
twenty-two years. For payment of compensation, the appellants
pleaded to shift the date for considering the market value of land as
on the date of the award and not as on the date of the Preliminary
Notification. Whether this Court should direct shifting of the date
for determination of the market value of the land in question of
the appellants.
Headnotes†
Constitution of India - Art.300-A - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 - From
1995 to 1997, appellants herein purchased various residential
sites - On 29.01.2003, a preliminary notification was issued
by Respondent No. 2 (KIADB) for acquiring the said lands -
The possession of the appellants' land was taken over by
Respondent No. 2 (KIADB), however, no award was passed
immediately for such acquisitions - On 22.04.2019, Special
Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) passed an award for payment
of compensation in respect of lands belonging to the erstwhile
land-owners - The Single Judge of the High Court quashed the
award dated 22.04.2019 passed by SLAO - Division Bench of
the High Court dismissed the writ Appeal filed by the appellants
herein - Appellants' plea to shift the date for considering the
market value of land as on the date of the award and not as
on the date of the Preliminary Notification:
Held: The appellants had purchased the plots in question for
construction of residential houses - Not only have they not been
able to construct, but they have also not been even paid any
* Author
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
191
Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz and Others v.
Government of Karnataka and Others
compensation for the same - The appellants have been deprived
of their property without paying any compensation for the same
in the said period of last twenty-two years - Though Right to
Property is no more a fundamental right, in view of the provisions
of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, it is a constitutional
right - A person cannot be deprived of his property without him
being paid adequate compensation in accordance with law for the
same - In the instant case, it can clearly be seen that there is
no delay which can be attributed to the appellants in not getting
compensation, but it was on account of the lethargic attitude of
the officers of the State/KIADB that the appellants were deprived
of compensation - Only after the notices were issued in the
contempt proceedings, the compensation was determined by
the SLAO on 22.04.2019 taking guideline values prevailing in
the year 2011 for determining the market value of the acquired
land - The Single Judge of the High Court also does not say that
the determination of compensation to be awarded by shifting of
the date by the SLAO to that of 2011 was unjust but only sets
aside the award on the ground that SLAO had no jurisdiction
to do so - If on account of the inordinate delay in paying the
compensation and thereby depriving the constitutional right to the
appellants under Article 300-A, the land acquisition proceedings
are quashed, the only recourse available to the State/KIADB in
order to save the project will be to now issue a fresh acquisition
notification by invoking the provisions as applicable under the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 which would entail huge
expenditure to the public exchequer - Therefore, in exercise of
power of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India,
this Court finds it appropriate in the interest of justice that the SLAO
be directed to determine the compensation to be awarded to the
appellants herein on the basis of the market value prevailing as
on 22.04.2019 - The appellants shall also be entitled to all the
statutory benefits as are available to them under the 1894 LA Act.
[Paras 49, 50, 54, 55, 57]
Land Acquisition - Compensation - Value of money - Disbursa

## Text

_Characters 0–39,918 of 86,797. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39918 for what follows._

[2025] 1 S.C.R. 190 : 2025 INSC 3
Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz and Others
v.
Government of Karnataka and Others
(Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2025)
 02 January 2025
[B.R. Gavai* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The Lands of appellants herein were acquired and they were
deprived of their property without paying any compensation for
twenty-two years. For payment of compensation, the appellants
pleaded to shift the date for considering the market value of land as
on the date of the award and not as on the date of the Preliminary
Notification. Whether this Court should direct shifting of the date
for determination of the market value of the land in question of
the appellants.
Headnotes†
Constitution of India - Art.300-A - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 - From
1995 to 1997, appellants herein purchased various residential
sites - On 29.01.2003, a preliminary notification was issued
by Respondent No. 2 (KIADB) for acquiring the said lands -
The possession of the appellants' land was taken over by
Respondent No. 2 (KIADB), however, no award was passed
immediately for such acquisitions - On 22.04.2019, Special
Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) passed an award for payment
of compensation in respect of lands belonging to the erstwhile
land-owners - The Single Judge of the High Court quashed the
award dated 22.04.2019 passed by SLAO - Division Bench of
the High Court dismissed the writ Appeal filed by the appellants
herein - Appellants' plea to shift the date for considering the
market value of land as on the date of the award and not as
on the date of the Preliminary Notification:
Held: The appellants had purchased the plots in question for
construction of residential houses - Not only have they not been
able to construct, but they have also not been even paid any
* Author
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
191
Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz and Others v.
Government of Karnataka and Others
compensation for the same - The appellants have been deprived
of their property without paying any compensation for the same
in the said period of last twenty-two years - Though Right to
Property is no more a fundamental right, in view of the provisions
of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, it is a constitutional
right - A person cannot be deprived of his property without him
being paid adequate compensation in accordance with law for the
same - In the instant case, it can clearly be seen that there is
no delay which can be attributed to the appellants in not getting
compensation, but it was on account of the lethargic attitude of
the officers of the State/KIADB that the appellants were deprived
of compensation - Only after the notices were issued in the
contempt proceedings, the compensation was determined by
the SLAO on 22.04.2019 taking guideline values prevailing in
the year 2011 for determining the market value of the acquired
land - The Single Judge of the High Court also does not say that
the determination of compensation to be awarded by shifting of
the date by the SLAO to that of 2011 was unjust but only sets
aside the award on the ground that SLAO had no jurisdiction
to do so - If on account of the inordinate delay in paying the
compensation and thereby depriving the constitutional right to the
appellants under Article 300-A, the land acquisition proceedings
are quashed, the only recourse available to the State/KIADB in
order to save the project will be to now issue a fresh acquisition
notification by invoking the provisions as applicable under the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 which would entail huge
expenditure to the public exchequer - Therefore, in exercise of
power of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India,
this Court finds it appropriate in the interest of justice that the SLAO
be directed to determine the compensation to be awarded to the
appellants herein on the basis of the market value prevailing as
on 22.04.2019 - The appellants shall also be entitled to all the
statutory benefits as are available to them under the 1894 LA Act.
[Paras 49, 50, 54, 55, 57]
Land Acquisition - Compensation - Value of money - Disbursal
of compensation with promptitude:
Held: It cannot be controverted that money is what money buys -
The value of money is based on the idea that money can be
invested to earn a return, and that the purchasing power of money
192
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
decreases over time due to inflation - What the appellants herein
could have bought with the compensation in 2003 cannot do in
2025 - It is, therefore, of utmost importance that the determination
of the award and disbursal of compensation in case of acquisition
of land should be made with promptitude. [Para 48]
Case Law Cited
Ram Chand and Others v. Union of India and Others, 1993
INSC 315 : [1993] Supp. 2 SCR 558 : (1994) 1 SCC 44; Vidya
Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, 2020 INSC 23 :
[2020] 1 SCR 749 : (2020) 2 SCC 569; Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.
v. Mast Ram and Others, 2024 INSC 709 : [2024] 9 SCR 443 :
2024 SCC OnLine 2598 - relied on.
Tukaram Kana Joshi and Others Through Power-of-Attorney
Holder v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and
Others, 2012 INSC 503 : [2012] 13 SCR 29 : (2013) 1 SCC 353;
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. State of
Maharashtra and Others, 2003 INSC 137 : [2003] 2 SCR 530 :
(2003) 4 SCC 200; Competent Authority v. Barangore Jute Factory
and Others, 2005 INSC 585 : [2005] Supp. 5 SCR 421 : (2005)
13 SCC 477; Haji Saeed Khan and Others v. State of U.P. and
Others (2001) 9 SCC 513; K. Krishna Reddy and Others v. Special
Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Unit II, LMD Karimnagar, Andhra
Pradesh, 1988 INSC 265 : [1988] Supp. 2 SCR 853 : (1988)
4 SCC 163 - referred to.
List of Acts
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966; Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013; Land Acquisition Act 1894; National
Highways Act, 1956; Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment)
Act, 1978; Constitution of India.
List of Keywords
Article 300-A of Constitution; Right to property; Constitutional
right; Acquisition of land; Preliminary notification; Payment
of compensation; Adequate compensation; Deprivation of
compensation; Disbursal of compensation; Market value of land;
Shifting the date for considering the market value of land; Inordinate
delay in paying the compensation; Welfare State.
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
193
Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz and Others v.
Government of Karnataka and Others
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.11.2022 of the High Court
of Karnataka at Bengaluru in WA No. 678 of 2022
Appearances for Parties
R. Chandrachud, Dhuli Ventaka Krishna, Advs. for the Appellant.
Avishkar Singhvi, A.A.G., Atmaram N.S. Nadkarni, Sr. Adv.,
Sharanagouda Patil, Mrs. Supreeta Patil, Jyotish Pandey,
S.S. Rebello, Ms. Deepti Arya, Arzu Paul, Vidur Nair (for M/s. S-legal
Associates), V.N. Raghupathy, Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, S.J.
Amith, Mrs. Vani Vyas, Prakhar Singh, Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
B.R. Gavai, J.
1.
Leave granted.
2.
This appeal takes exception to the final judgment and order dated
22nd November 2022 in Writ Appeal No. 678 of 2022 (LA-KIADB)
passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, whereby the
Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ appeal filed by
the appellants herein against the judgment and order dated 18th April
2022 in Writ Petition No. 1627 of 2021 passed by the learned Single
Judge of the High Court dismissing their writ petition.
FACTS:
3.
The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:
3.1. From 1995 to 1997, the appellants herein purchased various
residential sites at Gottigere Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru
South Taluk, Karnataka vide registered sale deeds and became
absolute owners of their respective sites.
3.2. On 3rd April 1997, a Framework Agreement (hereinafter,
"FWA") was executed between Government of Karnataka
(Respondent No. 1) and Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise
Ltd. (hereinafter, "NICE") (Respondent No. 6) envisaging the
194
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Infrastructure Corridor Project connecting Bengaluru-Mysuru
(hereinafter, "Bengaluru-Mysuru Infrastructure Corridor Project"
or "BMICP"). As per the FWA, the State Government undertook
to acquire about 13,237 acres of land from private persons and
about 6,956 acres of Government land. In all 20,193 acres of
land was agreed to be conveyed and transferred in favour of
Respondent No. 6 (NICE) for implementation of the BMICP.
3.3. On 14th October 1998, Respondent No. 6 applied to Karnataka
Industrial Areas Development Board (hereinafter, "KIADB")
(Respondent No. 2) to make available the lands for the project.
3.4. On 29th January 2003, a preliminary notification was issued by
Respondent No. 2 (KIADB) under sub-section (1) of Section 28
of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966
(hereinafter, "KIAD Act") for acquiring lands for the BMICP.
Notices were issued under sub-section (2) of Section 28 of KIAD
Act seeking objections from the land-owners. The appellants
also submitted their objections.
3.5. On 5th July 2003, upon consideration of the objections to the
Preliminary Notification, the Final Notification was issued by
Special Deputy Commissioner KIADB (Respondent No. 3).
3.6. On 22nd November 2005, the possession of the appellants'
land was taken over by Respondent No. 2 (KIADB) and
subsequently handed over to Respondent No. 6 (NICE) and
its sister concern Nandi Economic Corridor Enterprises Ltd.
(NECE) (Respondent No. 7). However, no Award was passed
immediately for such acquisitions.
3.7. In 2009-10, the land-owners filed Writ Petitions before the
High Court of Karnataka with a prayer to quash the acquisition
notifications insofar as it relates to their lands. In the alternative,
the land-owners sought a direction to the concerned authorities
to allot residential sites of equal dimension.
3.8. Vide judgment and order dated 15th June 2011, a Division
Bench of the High Court held that the acquisition notifications
cannot be quashed at such a belated stage and that there
cannot be any direction for allotment of alternative sites to
the land-owners. In the result, the batch of Writ Petitions
filed by the land-owners were dismissed, however, liberty
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
195
Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz and Others v.
Government of Karnataka and Others
was reserved to approach the concerned authorities if any
rehabilitation programme is specifically worked out or if any
welfare programme is generally available.
3.9. On 12th February 2016, in terms of the judgment and order of
the High Court dated 15th June 2011, some of the land-owners
submitted a representation inter-alia to the Government of
Karnataka, KIADB and NICE to frame a rehabilitation scheme
as mandatorily required under the FWA and to allot alternative
sites along with benefits under the scheme at the earliest.
3.10. On non-consideration of their representation, the landowners
filed Writ Petitions before the High Court being W.P. Nos.
49812-49863 of 2016 (LA-KIADB), with a prayer to direct the
State of Karnataka and KIADB to implement the request made
in the representation dated 12th February 2016 at the earliest
3.11. Vide order dated 24th March 2017, a learned Single Judge
of the High Court disposed of the Writ Petitions filed by the
land-owners by directing the State of Karnataka and KIADB
to consider their representation and pass appropriate orders,
in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.
3.12. Alleging non-compliance of the order of the learned Single
Judge dated 24th March 2017, Contempt Petitions being C.C.C.
No. 2434 of 2018 and C.C.C. No. 18-65 of 2019 came to be
filed by the land-owners.
3.13. During the pendency of the Contempt Petitions, the Special
Land Acquisition Officer-1, KIADB (BMICP), Bengaluru
(hereinafter, "SLAO") (Respondent No. 4), on 22nd April 2019,
passed an Award for payment of compensation in respect of
lands belonging to the erstwhile land-owners. In terms of the
legal opinion given by the Advocate General, Respondent No. 4
decided to postpone the date of Preliminary Notification from
29th January 2003 to the year 2011 and decided to consider
the guideline rates prevailing in the said year and formulate
an award. An amount of Rs. 32,69,45,789/- was, accordingly,
awarded for 11 Acre 1.25 Guntas of land.
3.14. In view of the Award dated 22nd April 2019, a compliance report
along with an endorsement came to be filed by the KIADB in
the contempt proceedings initiated by the land-owners before
196
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
the High Court. Therefore, a Division Bench of the High Court,
vide order dated 27th November 2019, dismissed as withdrawn
the Contempt Petitions with liberty to challenge the endorsement
in accordance with law.
3.15. On 19th June 2019, Respondents No. 6 and 7 (hereinafter
collectively referred to as "Project Proponents") filed Writ
Petitions being W.P. No. 26085 of 2019 and W.P. No. 31407
of 2019 before the Karnataka High Court challenging several
Awards passed by the SLAO, including the Award dated 22nd
April 2019. The Project Proponents were aggrieved by the
Award dated 22nd April 2019 inasmuch as, on account of delay
not attributable to them, they are being called upon to pay higher
compensation. It was their contention that the compensation
should be determined on the basis of the market value of land
as on the date of the Preliminary Notification and that the date
could not have been shifted.
3.16. On 5th January 2021, the erstwhile land-owners filed
impleadment application in the Writ Petitions filed by the
Project Proponents. The appellants herein, thereafter, filed a
substantive Writ Petition being W.P. No. 1627 of 2021 on 1st
June 2021. The appellants were aggrieved by the Award dated
22nd April 2019 inasmuch as, even though their lands were
acquired in the year 2003, no compensation for such acquisition
has been disbursed to the appellants despite a lapse of 18
years. It was their contention that the compensation should
be determined as per the current market value of the lands.
3.17. Vide common judgment and order dated 18th April 2022, a
learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru
allowed the Writ Petitions filed by the Project Proponents. The
High Court quashed the Award dated 22nd April 2019 passed
by Respondent No. 4 (SLAO). In view of the decision in the
Writ Petitions filed by the Project Proponents, the Writ Petition
filed by the appellants herein was disposed of as the same did
not survive for consideration inasmuch as the Award dated 22nd
April 2019 was quashed. Ultimately, the High Court directed the
concerned authorities to pass fresh awards in accordance with
law and after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to
the parties as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within
a period of three months.
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
197
Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz and Others v.
Government of Karnataka and Others
3.18. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants herein filed a Writ Appeal
being W.A. No. 678 of 2022 (LA-KIADB). Vide impugned
judgment and order dated 22nd November 2022, the Division
Bench of the High Court dismissed the Writ Appeal filed by
the appellants herein. Hence, the present appeal by way of
special leave.
4.
We have heard Shri R. Chandrachud, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellants, Shri Atmaram N. S. Nadkarni, learned Senior
Counsel for Respondents No. 6 and 7, Shri Avishkar Singhvi, learned
Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of Karnataka
and Shri Purushottam Sharma Tripathi for Respondents Nos. 2 to 5.
SUBMISSIONS:
5.
Shri Chandrachud submitted that the Division Bench of the High Court
erroneously dismissed the Writ Appeal against the judgment and order
of the learned Single Judge of the High Court as "premature". It is
submitted that the Writ Appeal was not premature as the appellants'
plea to shift the date for considering the market value of land as
on the date of the Award and not as on the date of the Preliminary
Notification was rejected by the learned Single Judge and thus the
issue stood decided against the appellants. It is further submitted that
more than 21 years have passed since the Preliminary Notification
was passed acquiring the appellants lands and they have not received
any compensation yet for the same. Relying on the judgments of this
Court in Ram Chand and Others v. Union of India and Others1
and Tukaram Kana Joshiand Others Through Power-of-Attorney
Holder v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and
Others,2 it is submitted that in exceptional cases, the authorities
must be directed to determine compensation on the basis of market
value of the land as on the date of the Award by notionally shifting
the date of the Preliminary Notification. It is lastly submitted that the
compensation be determined as per the provisions contained in the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter, "2013 LA Act")
inasmuch as in terms of Section 30 of the KIAD Act, the provisions of
1
1993 INSC 315 : [1993] Supp. 2 SCR 558 : (1994) 1 SCC 44
2
2012 INSC 503 : [2012] 13 SCR 29 : (2013) 1 SCC 353
198
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter, "1894 LA Act") have been
made applicable mutatis mutandis for the purposes of determination
and award of compensation. Reliance in this regard was placed by
the learned counsel for the appellants on the judgment of this Court
in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. State of
Maharashtra and Others.3
6.
Per contra, Shri Nadkarni for Respondents No. 6 and 7 submitted
that between 2009 and 2012, the Project Proponents wrote several
letters to Respondent No. 2 (KIADB) requesting for awards to be
passed. It is further submitted that as no awards were passed by
the SLAOs, the Project Proponents were constrained to file Writ
Petition before the High Court seeking direction to pass awards
which was allowed in 2013, thereafter, on non-compliance the Project
Proponents initiated contempt proceedings in 2015 as no awards
were still passed. It was, therefore, submitted that if this Court is
inclined to grant any relief in the form of additional compensation
or direct shifting of date as sought for, it may be seen that there
was no error or delay on part of the Project Proponents, who have
deposited compensation with Respondent No.2 (KIADB) as per the
agreement and therefore any additional liability should fall on the
State Government and/or the KIADB. Relying on the judgment of
this Court in Competent Authority v. Barangore Jute Factory
and Others,4 it is submitted that shifting of date can only take place
in very rare circumstances. It is further submitted that there is no
question of awarding compensation under the 2013 LA Act and a
completely new case has been sought to be made out before this
Court, which was not contended before the learned Single Judge
or Division Bench of the High Court. It is lastly submitted that the
appellants never sought directions to the State Government/SLAO
to pass awards and that steps in that regard were taken only in the
year 2021 which was pursuant to the various proceedings initiated
by the Project Proponents.
7.
Shri Singhvi for Respondent No. 1 submitted that the appellants'
claims are premature and speculative, as they have yet to exhaust
remedies available under the ongoing award proceedings. It is further
3
2003 INSC 137 : [2003] 2 SCR 530 : (2003) 4 SCC 200
4
2005 INSC 585 : [2005] Supp. 5 SCR 421 : (2005) 13 SCC 477
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
199
Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz and Others v.
Government of Karnataka and Others
submitted that the Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned
judgment and order, expressly held that the issue of shifting the date
of acquisition notification can only be examined after the award has
been passed by the SLAO. It was, therefore, submitted that present
appeal is untenable at this stage.
8.
Shri Purushottam Sharma Tripathi for Respondent Nos. 2 to 5
submitted that the SLAO passed the Award dated 22nd April 2019,
on the basis of specific opinion tendered by the learned Advocate
General with regard to shifting of the date. It is submitted that the
learned Single Judge of the High Court, upon consideration of the
material placed before it, has quashed the Award and directed
the SLAO to pass fresh awards within a stipulated timeframe. It
is further submitted that pursuant to the directions by the learned
Single Judge of the High Court, the SLAO has now passed fresh
awards for the acquired lands and if the appellants are aggrieved
by the compensation awarded, they may take such steps as are
permissible in law. It is, therefore, submitted that this Court should
not interfere with the concurrent findings of the learned Single Judge
and the Division Bench of the High Court.
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS:
9.
To consider the case of the appellants, it would be appropriate to
refer to the prayer clause of their Writ Petition before the High Court.
The appellants herein had filed Writ Petition being W.P. No. 1627
of 2021 (LA-KIADB) with the following prayers:
"WHEREFORE, the Petitioners most respectfully prays
that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to:
a.
Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ of the same
nature to quash and setting aside the Impugned Award
dated 22.04.2019 passed by the Respondent No. 4
bearing No. LAQ, SR/39 (26B, 10, 13, 14)/1998-99,
39 (30, 31, 37, 38, 40)/2002-03 SLAO-1, produced
at ANNEXURE - A;
b.
Consequent to prayer (a) issue a writ of mandamus
or any other writ of the same nature to direct the
Respondents to issue notice to Petitioners for
determining compensation and pass the Award as
200
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
per market value of land closest to date of passing
the Award;
c.
Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems
fit in the above circumstances of the case, in the
interests of justice and equity."
10. It is relevant to note that prior to the appellants herein Respondents
No. 6 and 7 (Project Proponents) had also filed Writ Petitions before
the High Court. From a perusal of the judgment and order of the
learned Single Judge dated 18th April 2022, it is clear that the Project
Proponents by way of Writ Petitions being W.P. No. 26085 of 2019 and
W.P. No. 31407 of 2019 had also challenged the awards. Therefore,
in the three writ petitions before the learned Single Judge, a common
question with regard to the legality, validity and correctness of the
Award dated 22nd April 2019 was raised.
11. Before adverting to the findings of the learned Single Judge on the
legality of the Award dated 22nd April 2019, it would be appropriate
to reproduce certain extracts from the Award, as under:
"14. Valuation of land:
In the notification dated: 29/01/2003 issued under
Section 28(1) of the Survey number lands, based on the
above sales figures, the value is Rs. 2,90,532/- per acre
and the guidance value is Rs. 6.00 lakhs. Therefore, if
the guidance value is Rs. 6.00 lakhs including all other
allowances, this rate will be found to be real and fair.
Accordingly, it was decided and declared the award on
05/07/2018 and submitted for approval.
Chief Executive Officer and Executive Member wrote
a letter vide No. KIADB/CEO&EM/16/2019-20 dated
16/04/2019. Along with the said letter, Government's
letter and Advocate General's opinion are attached, it is
suggested to prepare the revised award as per the opinion
given by the Advocate General and submit it for approval.
In this regard, this office letter No. KIADB/BMICP/LAQ(1)/
G.I/01/2019-20 dated 22/04/2019 has been written to the
Special Deputy Commissioner, KIADB (BMICP) seeking
clarification on other issues that there is no scope for
revising the current decision. On 22/04/2019 as per the
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
201
Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz and Others v.
Government of Karnataka and Others
Chief Executive Officer and Executive Member's letter No.
KIADB/BMICP/LAQ/CR/31/2013-14 dated 22/04/2019, it
is said that it has been suggested to submit again as per
the Advocate General's opinion and based on the previous
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several cases
regarding framing of compensatory rate/award in land
acquisition cases that even for the lands acquired for
BMICP scheme, it has been again instructed to prepare a
revised decision immediately as per the rules and submit it
for the approval of the government. For revising the award
and not considering the preliminary notification, the
Advocate General in his legal opinion dated 16/04/2019
has given the following legal opinion:
"KIADB and the State do not have any choice
but to pass the award which may be passed
taking into account and consideration the
market value of the property as on date."
As per the opinion given by the present Advocate General,
the award has to be made at current market rate equal to
the current market rate. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in several cases has issued preliminary notification,
final notification and handed over the assets to the Claims
Department, but in the case where no award has been
made for ten years, it is appropriate to pay real and fair
land compensation to the land owners to avoid injustice,
in such cases, the date of preliminary notification should
be changed to the date of handing over the assets to the
Claims Department, which was prevailing on that date. The
order is to create a judgment considering the market rate.
The following civil appeal cases of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court have been perused to form a award in this regard.
1.
CA No. 7015-7018/2005 (Competent Authority V/s
Barangore Jute Factory and Others)
2.
SLP (Civil) No. 1787473/2004 (State of M.P. V/s
Onkar Prasad Patel)
3.
CA No. 965/1979 with CA No. 3325/1984,
2185-87/1980, 2381/1980, SLP No. 12352-53/1984,
202
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
10572-74/1984 and others (Gauri Shankar Gaur and
others V/s State of U.P. and others)
4.
CA No. 2739/2000 with Nos. 2737/2000, 2738/2000,
2736/2000 Contempt Petition (C) No. 62/1999
(Haji Saeed Khan and others V/s State of U.P. and
others).
In the above cases the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
ordered to change the preliminary notification to the date
of handing over of the asset or to an appropriate date
conducive to giving equitable relief in cases where there
is severe delay in adjudication.
Based on the above judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, in the present case, the possession of the land was
handed over on 05/04/2004, 22/11/2005 and 25/11/2005,
if the award is framed considering the guideline rates
of 2011 (sic), it is not possible to give real and fair
compensation to the land owner.
Therefore, with a view to providing real and fair land
compensation to the landowners, it was decided to
postpone the date of preliminary notification to the
year 2011 and decided to consider the guideline rates
prevailing in the said year and formulate an award as
per the legal opinion given by the Advocate General."
(emphasis supplied)
12. It can thus be seen that the learned Advocate General rendered an
opinion on 16th April 2019, wherein it was stated that while passing the
awards, the market value as on date has to be taken on account of
enormous delay in passing the awards. KIADB forwarded the opinion
to the Special Deputy Commissioner (BMICP) and SLAO directing
them to pass the awards as per the opinion. On 22nd April 2019, the
SLAO wrote letters to the Special Deputy Commissioner (BMICP)
raising certain queries with regard to passing of fresh awards and
the compensation to be calculated in view of awards already passed
by them and sent for approval on 3rd November 2018. In response
to the said letters, the CEO of KIADB once again addressed a letter
dated 22nd April 2019, to the Special Deputy Commissioner (BMICP)
and the SLAO instructing them to pass the awards as directed in
the opinion of the learned Advocate General.
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
203
Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz and Others v.
Government of Karnataka and Others
13. It can further be seen that the opinion of the learned Advocate
General as well as the judgments of this Court referred to in the
Award were the only two factors that were taken into account for the
purpose of passing the Award dated 22nd April 2019, by Respondent
No. 4 (SLAO) by shifting/postponing the date of the Preliminary
Notification to the year 2011 and by considering the guideline rates
prevailing in the said year.
14. Aggrieved by the suo-motu shifting/postponing of the date of the
Preliminary Notification, the Project Proponents, who as a result were
called upon to pay higher compensation, had filed a Writ Petition
before the High Court. The appellants herein filed an impleadment
application in the Writ Petition filed by the Project Proponents so
also a substantive Writ Petition with prayers referred to hereinbefore.
Their grievance was two-fold to quash the Award and to direct
passing of an Award as per market value of land closest to date of
passing the Award.
15. For the common prayer qua quashing of the Award dated
22nd April 2019, it will be profitable to refer to the following paragraphs
of the judgment and order dated 18th April 2022, passed by the
learned Single Judge of the High Court:
"17.8 A perusal of the impugned awards will indicate that
the opinion of the learned Advocate General as well as
the judgments of the Apex Court referred to in the awards
were the only two factors that were taken into account
for the purpose of passing the awards by the SLAOs. As
stated supra, in so far as the opinion of the learned
Advocate General is concerned, the same with regard
to shifting of the date to reckon the market value of
the land from the date of the preliminary notification
to a later date is concerned, the said opinion was
beyond the scope and ambit of the query put forth
to him and consequently, the said opinion could not
have been made the basis by the SLAOs to pass the
impugned awards.
X-X -X -X -X -X -X
17.10 The second factor/circumstance that has been taken
into account by the SLAOs to shift the date to reckon the
market value of the lands from the date of the preliminary
204
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
notification to a later/subsequent dates is by placing
reliance upon the following decisions of the Apex Court viz.,
a.
 Competent Authority Vs. Barangor Jute Factory
C/w State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Onkar Prasad
Patel - (2005) 13 SCC 47
b.
 Gaurishankar Gaur Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh -
(1994) 1 SCC 92; and
c.
Haji Saeed Khan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh -
(2001) 9 SCC 513.
17.11 In this context, it is relevant to state that as can
be seen from the aforesaid decisions as well as various
decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court referred to
supra by both sides, that the market value of the acquired
lands has to be taken as on the date of the preliminary
notification as contemplated under Section 11 of the
L.A. Act, 1894; it has been held that under exceptional
circumstances, where either the Apex Court or High
Courts came to the conclusion that the acquisition
proceedings themselves were liable to be quashed
on account of certain illegalities or infirmities in the
acquisition process/procedure, it was permissible only
for the Apex Court in exercise of its powers under
Article 32/142 or the High Courts under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India to shift the date to a later/
subsequent date; however,this power to shift the date
is available only to either the Apex Court or the High
Courts and not definitely/certainly to the SLAOs or
the State Government; in other words, a perusal of
the decisions referred to supra, will indicate that in
cases, where the Apex Court as well as this Court
deemed it necessary to shift the date in order to do
complete and substantial justice, inherent powers of
the Courts were invoked and the dates were shifted in
order to ensure no hardship, loss or prejudice would
be caused to the land losers.
17.12 A perusal of the decisions relied upon by the
SLAOs in the impugned awards referred to supra, will
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
205
Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz and Others v.
Government of Karnataka and Others
clearly indicate that in the said cases, the Apex Court has
invoked its extraordinary jurisdiction and powers under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India and in the peculiar/
special facts and circumstances obtaining in the said
cases, the Apex Court had shifted the date to reckon the
market value. The SLAOs clearly fell in error in placing
reliance upon the said decisions of the Apex Court for
the purpose of shifting the date from the date of the
preliminary notification without appreciating that the
said shifting of the date by the SLAOs or the State
Government is not legally permissible in law either
under the provisions of the L.A. Act, 1894 or the
KIAD Act or the Rules or by any judicial precedent.
It is also relevant to state that even as per the aforesaid
judgments, shifting of the date from the date of the
preliminary notification to any later/subsequent date has
been done only up to the date of taking possession from
the land losers. In the instant case, the impugned awards
disclose that the SLAOs have shifted the date to a date
subsequent/later to the date of taking possession. Under
these circumstances, it is clear that the impugned awards
purporting to shift the date suffers from several legal and
factual infirmities and illegalities which vitiate the impugned
awards, which deserve to be quashed on this ground also."
(emphasis supplied)
16. It can thus be seen that the learned Single Judge of the High Court,
upon appreciation of the material placed on record, was of the
view that insofar as the opinion of the learned Advocate General
with regard to shifting of the date of the preliminary notification to
a later date is concerned, the said opinion was beyond the scope
and ambit of the query put forth to him and consequently, the said
opinion could not have been made the basis by the SLAO to pass
the Award. It is further to be seen that the learned Single Judge
of the High Court after considering the provisions of 1894 LA Act,
KIAD Act and various decisions of this Court, observed that the
market value of the acquired land has to be taken as on the date
of the preliminary notification as contemplated under Section 11 of
the 1894 LA Act. Further, the learned Single Judge of the High Court
observed that only in exceptional circumstances, where either this
206
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Court or the High Court comes to the conclusion that the acquisition
proceedings themselves were liable to be quashed on account of
certain illegalities or infirmities in the acquisition process/procedure,
it was permissible only for this Court in exercise of its powers under
Article 32/142 or the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India to shift the date to a later/subsequent date. It was further
observed that this power to shift the date is available only to either
this Court or the High Courts and not definitely/certainly to the SLAOs
or the State Government.
17. We are in agreement with the findings of the learned Single Judge
of the High Court, inasmuch as the SLAO cannot shift/postpone
the date of preliminary notification. In case, upon appreciation of
the material placed on record if this Court or the High Court, in
exceptional circumstances, came to the conclusion that the acquisition
proceedings themselves were liable to be quashed only then by
exercising inherent powers this Court under Article 32/142 or the
High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India respectively
can shift/postpone the date of preliminary notification to a later date.
In our considered opinion, therefore, the learned Single Judge of
the High Court rightly came to the conclusion that the Award dated
22nd April 2019 be quashed and set aside and ordered accordingly.
18. Having decided thus, in the Writ Petitions filed by the Project
Proponents, the learned Single Judge of the High Court came to
the conclusion that the Writ Petition filed by the appellants herein
before the High Court does not survive for consideration and the
same was, accordingly, disposed of.
19. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants herein filed an intra-court appeal
being Writ Appeal No. 678 of 2022 (LA-KIADB) before the Division
Bench of the High Court.
20. The Division Bench of the High Court vide impugned judgment and
order dated 22nd November 2022 upon consideration of the material
placed before it, in paragraph 9, observed thus:
"9. Further, the learned Single Judge held that the SLAO has
to determine the compensation as on the date of issuing the
preliminary notification as contemplated under Section 11
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and not to shift the date
to a later/subsequent date. The learned Single Judge has
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
207
Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz and Others v.
Government of Karnataka and Others
set aside the award passed by the SLAO and directed the
SLAO to reconsider and pass award. The grievance of
the petitioner regarding shifting the date at any later
or subsequent date could be considered only if award
is passed by the SLAO. The SLAO is yet to pass an
award. The grievance raised by the petitioner in this
writ appeal is premature. If the petitioner is dissatisfied
with the award to be passed by the SLAO, liberty is
reserved to the petitioner to raise the grounds urged
in this appeal in the appropriate proceedings before
the appropriate forum. The question of considering the
shifting of date from the date of preliminary notification to
any other date would arise only when the award is passed.
The cause of action arose for the petitioner to raise the
said issue only after the award is passed. The shifting of
the date to a later/subsequent date is available only to the
Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court, but not to the SLAO
or State Government..."
(emphasis supplied)
21. It can thus be seen that the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed
the Writ Appeal on the ground that the learned Single Judge has
set aside the award passed by the SLAO and directed the SLAO to
reconsider and pass award and so the grievance regarding shifting
the date at any later or subsequent date could be considered only
if an award is passed by the SLAO. The Division Bench of the High
Court was, therefore, of the opinion that the grievance sought to
be raised in the writ appeal is premature and that the question of
considering the shifting of date of preliminary notification to any other
date would arise only when the award is passed.
22. In the present appeal, it was sought to be contended by the learned
counsel for the appellants that the Writ Appeal was not pre-mature
inasmuch as the prayer to shift the date for considering the market
value of the land as on the date of the award and not as on the date
of the preliminary notification was rejected by the learned Single
Judge of the High Court and thus the issue stood decided against the
appellants, as a consequence of which the cause of action remained.
23. We are of the opinion that the contention of the learned counsel for
the appellants is liable to be accepted. We say so because upon
208
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
adjudication of the Writ Petitions filed by the Project Proponents,
the learned Single Judge of the High Court came to the conclusion
that the Award dated 22nd April 2019, is liable to be quashed and
set aside and ordered accordingly.