Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz and Ors. Vs. Government of Karnataka and Ors. [Civil Appeal No._______ of 2025 arising out of SLP (C) No. 10338 of 2023]
- ByPravleen Kaur --
- 15 Jun 2025 --
- 0 Comments
The Supreme Court of India, in Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz and Ors. vs. Government of Karnataka and Ors. [Civil Appeal No. _______ of 2025 arising out of SLP (C) No. 10338 of 2023], delivered its judgment on January 2, 2025, addressing the long-pending issue of land acquisition and compensation related to the Bengaluru-Mysuru Infrastructure Corridor Project (BMICP).
Facts and Background
The appellants, Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz and others, purchased residential plots in Gottigere Village, Bengaluru, between 1995 and 1997 through registered sale deeds, acquiring full ownership. In 1997, the Government of Karnataka entered into a Framework Agreement with the Bangalore Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises (BMICE) for the BMICP, which involved acquiring over 20,000 acres of land, including the appellants’ properties.
A preliminary acquisition notification was issued in 2003 by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB). The appellants raised objections and filed writ petitions challenging the acquisition notifications, but the High Court dismissed these petitions as belated. The appellants faced significant delays in receiving compensation, with the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) issuing an award only in 2019 based on market values as of 2011.
Dissatisfied with the compensation, the appellants filed further writ petitions. The Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court quashed the SLAO’s award and directed fresh consideration of compensation. However, the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal filed by the appellants, deeming the challenge premature.
Legal Issues
The Supreme Court examined:
The constitutional protection under Article 300-A against deprivation of property without due process and just compensation.
Whether the prolonged delay in payment of compensation violated the appellants’ fundamental rights.
The authority of the SLAO to shift the date of valuation for compensation.
The adequacy and fairness of the compensation awarded to the appellants.
Court’s Findings and Reasoning
The Court reiterated that no person can be deprived of property except by authority of law and with just compensation, as guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution. It observed that the appellants were deprived of their property for over two decades without receiving adequate compensation, primarily due to the lethargic attitude of the State and KIADB officials.
The Court held that the delay in compensation violated the appellants’ constitutional rights. It emphasized that the SLAO cannot unilaterally shift the valuation date without judicial approval, and compensation must reflect the market value at the appropriate time to ensure fairness.
The Supreme Court quashed the impugned High Court judgment and directed the SLAO to reassess compensation within two months based on the 2019 market value. The appellants were granted liberty to challenge the fresh award if dissatisfied. The State and project proponents were directed to settle their financial liabilities amongst themselves.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment underscores:
The inviolability of the right to property under Article 300-A.
The State’s obligation to pay timely and fair compensation for acquired land.
The necessity of judicial oversight in valuation and compensation processes.
The Court’s readiness to exercise its powers to ensure justice and prevent undue hardship caused by administrative delays.
This landmark ruling reinforces the protection of landowners’ rights against protracted acquisition processes and delays in compensation, ensuring adherence to constitutional guarantees and principles of natural justice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments