Case: Shri Lokanna S/o. Ramappa Biradarpatil and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others

Court: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Suraj Govindaraj

Date of Decision: 23 September 2025

Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC-D:12927

Writ Petition: No. 106967 of 2025 (LA-RES)

Introduction

This decision addresses a recurring and practical problem in land acquisition under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act, 2013): delays in releasing compensation after the award. The petitioners—land losers from Bagalkot—approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 seeking a writ of mandamus to compel payment of compensation pursuant to a “general award” under Section 30 of the RFCTLARR Act.

The State resisted on the ground that the writ was not maintainable because the petitioners had an alternative remedy—allegedly by way of execution proceedings. The Court framed and answered a narrow but important question: whether, upon the passing of an award under Section 30, a land loser can seek mandamus if the Collector/Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) fails to deposit compensation into the land loser’s bank account as mandated by Section 77 of the Act.

The ruling consolidates and clarifies the statutory duty under Section 77, the limited exceptions under Section 77(2), the interplay with references under Section 64, and, crucially, the maintainability of a writ to enforce the statutory duty without driving land losers to execution proceedings.

Summary of the Judgment

• Facts:
  • Preliminary notification under Section 11(1) of the RFCTLARR Act was issued on 21.01.2021; the final notification under Section 19(1) followed on 07.09.2023.
  • A general award under Section 30 was made on 05.10.2024. A notice (described as under Section 37) called upon the petitioners to submit documents for payment; the petitioners complied.
  • Despite the award and submission of documents, no compensation was deposited for nearly a year. The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus requiring payment in terms of their notice dated 05.10.2024.
• Issue: Whether, after a general award under Section 30, a land loser is entitled to a mandamus under Article 226 if the authorities do not deposit the compensation as mandated by Section 77 of the RFCTLARR Act.
• Holding:
  • Section 77(1) creates a statutory duty on the Collector/SLAO to deposit compensation into the land loser’s bank account upon making the award under Section 30.
  • Only the limited contingencies in Section 77(2)—non-consent to receive, incompetency to alienate, or disputes as to title/apportionment—justify deposit with the Authority (for a Section 64 reference) instead of the land loser’s bank account.
  • A mere dispute about the quantum of compensation is not a ground to withhold payment; land losers may accept under protest and seek reference under Section 64.
  • The Collector/SLAO should deposit the awarded amount “as expeditiously as possible,” preferably within 30 days of the award.
  • Writ jurisdiction is maintainable to enforce this statutory duty; there is no necessity to drive land losers to “execution proceedings.”
• Operative Directions:
  • The writ petition was allowed.
  • Mandamus issued directing respondent No. 4 (SLAO, Bagalkot Town Development Authority) to pay the compensation awarded under Section 30 along with applicable interest within four weeks of receipt of the certified order.
  • As the petitioners have sought a reference regarding quantum, the Reference Authority shall consider it in accordance with law, there being no title dispute.

Detailed Analysis

Statutory Framework Applied

• Section 11(1) and Section 19(1), RFCTLARR: Preliminary and final notifications marking acquisition proceedings.
• Section 30, RFCTLARR: Award of the Collector, including components of compensation (market value components, solatium, and statutory additions such as the amount referred to in Section 30(3)).
• Section 77, RFCTLARR: Payment modality: upon making an award under Section 30, the Collector “shall” tender payment and pay it by depositing in the bank accounts of the persons entitled, unless prevented by contingencies in Section 77(2); in those contingencies, deposit is to be made with the Authority competent to hear references under Section 64.
• Provisos to Section 77(2):
  • Payment may be received under protest as to sufficiency of amount, preserving the right to seek a Section 64 reference.
  • If one accepts payment otherwise than under protest, a Section 64 reference is barred.
  • Payment to an apparent recipient does not absolve liability to pay the person lawfully entitled, if different.
• Section 64, RFCTLARR: Reference to the Authority for determination of adequacy of compensation (and related disputes) upon application by a person who has not accepted the award.
• Karnataka Amendment (Section 23A): Noted by the Court while describing the sequence leading to and culminating in the award under Section 30.

Legal Reasoning

1. Section 77(1) imposes a positive, mandatory duty. The Court emphasizes the “shall” in Section 77(1): upon making an award under Section 30, the Collector/SLAO must deposit compensation into the land loser’s bank account. This is the default rule, not an option.
2. Exceptions are narrow and exhaustively stated in Section 77(2). Payment into bank account can be diverted only to the statutory Authority (for reference) if:
   • the person entitled does not consent to receive, or
   • there is no one competent to alienate the land, or
   • there is a dispute as to title or apportionment.
   The presence of these contingencies triggers deposit with the Authority, not withholding of payment altogether.
3. Quantum disputes do not justify withholding payment. The Court draws a critical distinction between disputes about title (which implicate who is to be paid) and disputes about quantum (how much is to be paid). Quantum disputes can be raised via a Section 64 reference and do not permit the Collector to hold back deposit. The statutory design encourages payment, with any adequacy challenge to follow.
4. Receive under protest; pursue reference. The first and second provisos to Section 77(2) are central: land losers may accept payment “under protest” to preserve a Section 64 reference; acceptance without protest bars such a reference. The Court underscores that this architecture cannot be inverted by withholding payment because amount is contested.
5. Timeliness: “preferably within 30 days.” While the Act does not stipulate a precise time frame for deposit post-award, the Court articulates a normative standard—deposit “as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 30 days.” This benchmarks administrative conduct and reduces scope for delay.
6. Maintainability of writ; no need for execution proceedings. The Court rejects the argument that land losers should pursue execution proceedings. The obligation in Section 77(1) is a public, statutory duty; mandamus is an appropriate remedy to compel its performance. Driving land losers to execution would be inconsistent with the Act’s express mechanism compelling immediate payment/deposit.
7. Consequence for ongoing references. The Court directs that the petitioners’ reference regarding quantum be heard on merits, since there is no title dispute. Payment now and adjudication of adequacy later is the proper sequence under the Act.
8. “Deemed acceptance” if no protest within a reasonable time. The Court observes that if no protest is made within a reasonable period, it would be deemed that the land loser has accepted the award quantum. This observation operates alongside the statutory scheme that conditions a Section 64 reference on non-acceptance/protest within the Act’s prescribed timelines.

Precedents Cited

The judgment is notable for relying squarely on the text and structure of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013—particularly Section 77—and does not cite specific prior judicial authorities. Nonetheless, its approach is consistent with broader constitutional and land acquisition jurisprudence, including the following well-recognized principles:

• Mandamus to enforce public/statutory duties: The Supreme Court has long held that writs lie to enforce statutory duties of public authorities (for example, Andi Mukta Sadguru v. V.R. Rudani), especially where duties are clear and ministerial.
• Alternative remedy is not an absolute bar: The Court’s readiness to issue mandamus despite an asserted “alternative remedy” aligns with the settled principle that availability of another remedy does not bar a writ where a public duty is in issue or where the action complained of is arbitrary or contrary to statute (as recognized in cases such as Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks and Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation).
• Deposit obligations and interest in land acquisition: Under the predecessor 1894 Act, the Supreme Court stressed the Collector’s obligation to deposit compensation promptly, with interest consequences for delays (e.g., General Manager, ONGC v. Sendhabhai Vastram Patel; Prem Nath Kapur v. National Fertilizers). The present ruling’s insistence on prompt deposit parallels that approach, adapted to the RFCTLARR Act’s Section 77 mechanism (bank deposit or deposit with the Authority).

These references are jurisprudentially aligned, though not expressly cited in the judgment.

Impact and Implications

• Administrative practice reset: SLAOs/Collectors in Karnataka (and by persuasive value, elsewhere) are put on notice that compensation must be deposited swiftly after the award—preferably within 30 days—into land losers’ bank accounts, unless a Section 77(2) contingency exists.
• Limited grounds to withhold payment: Authorities can no longer cite “dispute about adequacy” as a reason to delay; only title/apportionment or competence issues justify diversion to the Authority. Routine delays risk exposure to statutory interest and judicial directions.
• Ease of enforcement for land losers: Land losers can approach the High Court under Article 226 to enforce the statutory duty in Section 77. They need not resort to execution proceedings simply to receive what the statute mandates.
• Beneficiary agencies’ obligations: Beneficiaries (such as KBJNL) must ensure timely fund availability so that SLAOs/Collectors can comply. Inter-agency bottlenecks will not excuse non-compliance with Section 77.
• Reference practice under Section 64: The ruling reinforces the Act’s logic: take the money now (under protest if necessary), litigate adequacy through a Section 64 reference. This sequencing reduces hardship and accelerates relief to land losers while preserving their right to enhanced compensation.
• Normative timeline and “deemed acceptance” signal: The preferred 30-day benchmark and the observation on “deemed acceptance” (in the absence of protest) will guide both administrators and claimants. Land losers should record their protest in time to preserve references; administrators should plan for disbursements within the indicated window.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• General award (Section 30): The Collector’s award determining compensation for acquired land. It includes market value components, solatium, and statutory additions (including the amount referred to in Section 30(3)).
• Section 77—how payment must be made:
  • Default rule: Deposit the compensation in the land loser’s bank account.
  • Exceptions (Section 77(2)): If the person will not receive, is not competent to alienate, or there is a dispute over title/apportionment, deposit the amount with the statutory Authority that hears Section 64 references.
  • Protest mechanism: A land loser who thinks the amount is too low should still accept the money “under protest” so that a reference for enhanced compensation remains open.
• Reference under Section 64: A statutory proceeding before the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority to re-determine compensation or decide disputes. It is available to those who have not accepted the award or have accepted it under protest, subject to time limits in the Act.
• Title dispute vs. quantum dispute:
  • Title/apportionment dispute: Uncertainty about who is entitled to compensation, or how it should be split. This triggers deposit with the Authority instead of directly into a bank account.
  • Quantum dispute: The land loser thinks the amount is inadequate. This does not stop payment; it is addressed via a Section 64 reference after receiving payment under protest.
• Mandamus: A writ issued by the High Court to compel a public authority to perform a statutory or public duty. Here, it compels the SLAO/Collector to obey Section 77’s deposit requirement.
• “Preferably within 30 days” guideline: Although the Act does not fix a precise timeline for post-award payment, the Court has set a best-practice benchmark for administrative compliance.
• “Deemed acceptance” remark: The Court notes that if no timely protest is made, acceptance may be inferred, potentially foreclosing a Section 64 reference. Land losers should therefore record their protest within the Act’s time limits rather than wait for a “reasonable period.”
• Interest and statutory additions: The RFCTLARR Act provides both an “additional amount” linked to the period between notification and award/possession (Section 30(3)) and interest where payment is delayed. The Court directed payment with “applicable interest,” reinforcing the cost of delay to the acquiring authorities.

Conclusion

This decision articulates a clear and claimant-friendly rule: once a general award under Section 30 is made, the Collector/SLAO must promptly deposit compensation in the land loser’s bank account, preferably within 30 days, unless a Section 77(2) contingency exists. Disputes about the quantum of compensation cannot be used to withhold payment; instead, the Act’s protest-and-reference mechanism under Section 64 must be used to test adequacy.

The Court’s rejection of the “alternative remedy via execution” argument is significant. It situates enforcement of Section 77 within the High Court’s writ jurisdiction, enabling swift relief against administrative delay. By combining a bright-line reading of Section 77 with practical guidance on timelines and protest/reference rights, the ruling should reduce compensation-release delays, impose discipline on beneficiary agencies and SLAOs, and better align practice with the RFCTLARR Act’s core promise of fair and timely compensation.

Key takeaways:

• Payment after a Section 30 award is a statutory duty; mandamus is available to enforce it.
• Only title/apportionment-type disputes justify diverting deposit to the Authority under Section 77(2).
• Quantum disputes must proceed by accepting under protest and seeking a Section 64 reference.
• Authorities should target deposit within 30 days; delays may attract statutory financial consequences.