BERNARD FRANCIS JOSEPH VAZ AND OTHERS versus GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2025] 1 S.C.R. 190 · Decided: 01-01-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[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 powe

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.