Karnataka High Court Directs Timely Payment to Landowners, Says Collector Must Deposit Compensation Within 30 Days Without Execution Proceedings
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer to pay the petitioners compensation awarded under Section 30 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, along with applicable interest, within four weeks. The case involved landowners from Bagalkote whose property was acquired for the Upper Krishna Project but who had not received payment despite a general award issued in October 2024. Clarifying the law, the Court held that once such an award is passed, the Collector must deposit the compensation in the landowner’s bank account as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 30 days, unless there is a dispute over the title to the acquired property.
The petition was filed by three individuals — Lokanna Biradarpatil, his spouse Bharati Biradarpatil, and Sanket Hosamani — who claimed ownership of a plot of land in Bagalkote, Karnataka. Their land was acquired for the Upper Krishna Project. A preliminary notification for acquisition was issued on 21 January 2021 under Section 11(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act). This was followed by a final notification on 7 September 2023 under Section 19(1) of the same Act. A general award determining compensation was subsequently published on 5 October 2024, and a notice under Section 37 of the Act was issued to the landowners to submit relevant documents for payment.
The petitioners stated that they complied with the notice by submitting all required papers but did not receive the compensation. They contended that under Section 30 of the RFCTLARR Act, once an award is passed, it is the duty of the acquiring authority to remit the amount to the landowners’ bank accounts without delay.
The respondents included the State of Karnataka, the Managing Director of Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Limited (the project beneficiary), the Special Deputy Commissioner for the Upper Krishna Project, and the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bagalkote Town Development Authority. They argued that the petitioners had an alternative remedy through execution proceedings and that a writ petition was therefore not maintainable.
During the proceedings, it was noted that the relevant statutory framework included Sections 11(1), 19(1), 30, 37, and 77 of the RFCTLARR Act. Section 77 was specifically cited by the Court for its requirement that compensation, once awarded, must be deposited directly in the landowners’ accounts unless there is a dispute over the title or other specified contingencies. The dispute thus centered on the delay in payment of compensation despite the issuance of the award and completion of necessary procedural steps by the petitioners.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj recorded that the pivotal issue was whether “the general award passed under Section 30 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, would entitle the land loser to approach this Court for a mandamus if the respondents did not deposit the amount covered under the general award in the bank account of the petitioners.” The Court proceeded to analyze the statutory framework of the Act.
The Court stated that “on making an award under Section 30, the Collector shall tender payment of the compensation awarded by him to the persons interested entitled thereto according to the award and shall pay it to them by depositing the amount in their bank accounts unless prevented by someone or more of the contingencies mentioned in sub-section (2).”
The Court stated that Section 77(1) makes it mandatory for the Collector to deposit the compensation directly into the land losers’ bank accounts. It further observed that “the general rule is for the Collector to deposit the amounts in the bank account of the land loser and the only exceptions are those covered under sub-Section (2) of Section 77.” The contingencies referred to in sub-section (2) include situations where the person entitled does not consent to receive payment, where there is no person competent to alienate the land, or where there is a dispute as to the title or apportionment of the compensation.
Justice Govindaraj recorded that “even if the quantum of compensation is under dispute, it is the duty of the Collector to remit the amount into the bank account of the land loser without delay.” The Court stated that receipt of compensation under protest does not preclude the land loser from challenging the adequacy of compensation by seeking a reference under Section 64 of the Act. Therefore, withholding compensation merely because the amount is disputed is impermissible.
The Court clarified that “once an award under Section 30 is passed, it is for the Collector to as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 30 days, deposit the amount so awarded under a general award into the bank account of the land loser unless there is a dispute as regards the title to the property acquired.” It further recorded that the Collector’s failure to act in this manner would constitute a breach of statutory duty.
The Court stated that “there is a bounden duty on part of the Special Land Acquisition Officer/Collector to deposit the amount.”
Justice Suraj Govindarajheld: “A mandamus is issued directing respondent No.4 to make payment of the compensation as awarded in the award passed under Section 30 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 along with applicable interest within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.”
Further, the Court noted that the petitioners had already filed a reference regarding the adequacy of the compensation. It directed that “the Reference Authority shall consider the same in accordance with law as there being no particular objection as regards the title to the property.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Sri N.L. Batakurki, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Sri P.N. Hatti, High Court Government Pleader, 3, and 4; Smt. Surabhi Kulkarni, Advocate.
Case Title: Shri Lokanna S/o Ramappa Biradarpatil & Ors. v. The State of Karnataka & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: KHC-D:12927
Case Number: WP No. 106967 of 2025
Bench: Justice Suraj Govindaraj
