The first step before proposing any infrastructural change in a State is to assess the available land resources in the State. It is only when the Government is satisfied as regards the availability of sufficient land resources both, inhabited or uninhabited, for greater public purpose, it proposes a development project after taking into account the various factors. One of the most important factors that comes into play is the acquisition of inhabited land proposed to be repurposed as an infrastructure project, be it for Roads, Highways, Buildings and Public transport infrastructure, parks etc.
Acquisition of land for public purpose is undertaken under the power of eminent domain of the Government. When such a power is exercised, it is coupled with a bounden duty and obligation on the part of the Government bodies to ensure that the owners whose lands get acquired are paid timely compensation under the prevalent statutory scheme in the State.
In India, earlier the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('1894 Act') governed land acquisition. The 1894 Act was replaced with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ('2013 Act'). In addition, to the primary acts referred herein above, there are other supplementary laws that govern acquisition for Highways, Metro, Railway and acts for Mineral Resources etc.
Despite adequate statutory provisions, the process of land acquisition is often mired in controversies owing to resistance from persons affected by the project being developed. The major cause of this resistance is delay in process of land acquisition and timely award of compensation to affected persons. Issues of this nature have historically been subject matter of litigation at the instance of project proponents, State and affected persons. In fact, the Courts in India have shaped the jurisprudence on land acquisition with their findings on these issues.
The present article discusses the recent Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz v. State Karnataka, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 20, where the Apex court has once again held that though the Right to Property is no more a fundamental right, however it continues to be a human right in a welfare state and it is a constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Therefore, no person can be dispossessed of his property without being paid adequate compensation in accordance with law.
Background of the Dispute:
In this case Bernard Francis Joseph and Ors. (Appellants) filed a SLP before the Hon'ble SC against the Division Bench order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka (HC) whereby the setting aside of Award dated 22.04.2019 (Award) passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) for the Appellant's land acquisition, was upheld.
A Framework Agreement (FWA) was executed between State Government and Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise Ltd. (NICE), for development of the Bengaluru-Mysuru Infrastructure Corridor Project (BMICP) connecting Bengaluru and Mysuru. In terms of the FWA, State Government undertook to acquire 20,193 acres of land (13,237 acres privately owned and 6,956 acres Government land), which was agreed to be transferred to NICE for implementation of the BMICP.
In 1998, NICE applied to Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) to make land available for the Project. In 2003, a preliminary notification was issued by KIADB under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (KIAD Act) for acquiring lands for BMICP. Notices were issued under Section 28(2) of KIAD Act seeking objections from the landowners. Thereafter, the possession of the Appellants' land was taken over by KIADB and handed over to NICE. However, no Award was passed immediately for such acquisitions.
In 2009-10, the landowners filed Writ Petitions (WP) before the HC seeking quashing of acquisition notifications. The HC dismissed the WP and held that acquisition notifications cannot be quashed at such a belated stage and there cannot be any direction for allotment of alternative sites to the landowners.
Landowners made a representation before KIADB and NICE to frame a rehabilitation scheme or allot alternative sites. Upon non-consideration of their representation, the landowners filed WP before the HC. The HC directed the State to consider their representation. Consequently, on 22.04.2019, the SLAO passed the Award for payment of compensation in respect of lands to the landowners.
The Award was challenged before the HC by the Project Proponents and by order dated 18.04.2022, the HC quashed the Award. In view of this decision, the WP filed by the Appellants herein was also disposed of, as the same did not survive for consideration, but with a direction to the concerned authorities to pass fresh awards at any rate within a period of 3 months. Thereafter, Appellants filed a Writ Appeal before the Division Bench, which dismissed the Writ and hence, they approached the Apex Court.
Findings & Analysis:
The Hon'ble Apex Court has extensively discussed the jurisprudence on this issue and emphasised the mandate under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. The State cannot dispossess a citizen of his property except in accordance with the procedure established by law.
In the present case the Apex court has noted that there was no delay attributable to the Appellants in not getting compensation, but it was on account of the lethargic attitude of the officers of the State/KIADB that Appellants were deprived of compensation. Therefore, if the compensation to be awarded at the market value as of the year 2003 is permitted, it would amount to permitting a travesty of justice and making the constitutional provisions under Article 300-A a mockery. The Apex Court, in exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, held 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. It was further directed that the Appellants shall be entitled to all the statutory benefits as are available to them under the 1894 Act.
The Apex Court has noted that delay in the payment of compensation, in accordance with law, to landowners after taking away ownership of their land from them is in contravention to the spirit of the constitutional scheme of Article 300-A and the idea of a welfare State.
The Court has emphasised on the utmost importance of determination of the award and disbursal of compensation being made with promptitude, given that the purchasing power of money decreases over time due to inflation.
Conclusion:
The afore-mentioned Judgment of the Supreme Court along with the previous cases on the issue, have provided a much necessary relief to the persons affected by Government led land acquisitions and the findings in Bernard Francis's case will have a far-reaching effect on multiple pending litigations where the issue of market rate to be taken for the acquired land is in issue.
The judgment will also act as a deterrent for Government Agencies and Private Contractors, at whose behest often land acquisition activities are taken up for various purposes. It will ensure that there is timely completion of acquisition and award – since ultimately the delay in completion of such proceedings and subsequent loss of time value of money will have to be borne by these Agencies and Contractors.
Since the Apex Court has with great emphasis stated that right to fair and timely compensation against land acquisition is a constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, the dicta of this judgment is a valuable addition to the land acquisition jurisprudence and will indeed ensure a welfare State, in India.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
