No Compensation If Land Acquisition Proceedings Are Abandoned & Property Excluded From Final Notification: Karnataka High Court

"Since the respondents have not acquired the land of the appellant/petitioner, there could be no question of writ of mandamus being issued to the respondents to pass a Final Notification and to pay a compensation," Karnataka High Court, in a significant ruling, held that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to compel the State to complete land acquisition or pay compensation if the acquisition proceedings were abandoned and the specific property was excluded from subsequent notifications.

A bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju observed that in the absence of a final notification or actual acquisition, the petitioner cannot claim a right to compensation.

The appellant’s father was granted one acre of land in Handrahalli village in 1994. While a Preliminary Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued in 1995 for the Defence Research & Development Organization (DRDO), no Final Notification followed. A subsequent notification in 1999 excluded the appellant’s land, leading to the current legal challenge seeking the completion of the acquisition and payment of compensation.

The primary question before the court was whether a writ of mandamus could be issued to compel the government to issue a Final Notification and award compensation based on an abandoned Preliminary Notification. The court also examined the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India in entertaining disputed questions of fact regarding the possession and acquisition of land.

No Right To Compensation Without Final Acquisition

The Court noted that although a Preliminary Notification was issued in 1995, those proceedings were effectively abandoned. The respondents demonstrated that a fresh notification was issued in 1999 which did not include the appellant’s property. The bench clarified that the mere issuance of a Section 4(1) notification does not vest the land in the State nor does it create an absolute right for the owner to demand compensation if the process is dropped.

"Since the respondents have not acquired the land of the appellant/petitioner, there could be no question of writ of mandamus being issued to the respondents to pass a Final Notification and to pay a compensation."

Effect Of Abandonment Of Acquisition Proceedings

The bench emphasized that the 1995 proceedings had reached a dead end. It was observed that when the State decides not to proceed with a specific acquisition and subsequently issues a new notification for a different area or excludes certain survey numbers, the original preliminary notification loses its force. The court relied on an endorsement from the Special Land Acquisition Officer which confirmed that the appellant's land was not part of the finalized acquisition.

"The suit property was never acquired by respondent No.3/Acquisition Officer and although a Notification was issued in the year 1995, those proceedings were abandoned and no subsequent notification qua the appellant/petitioner's land was issued thereafter."

Writ Jurisdiction And Disputed Questions Of Fact

Addressing the appellant's contention that the court should investigate the facts, the bench referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Real Estate Agencies v. State of Goa. While the High Court has the power under Article 226 to adjudicate questions of fact, the bench noted that as a matter of prudence, it should decline to do so when the claims are complex and require oral evidence.

Court Explains Discretionary Power Under Article 226

The Court highlighted that there is no universal rule barring a writ court from entertaining disputed facts. However, the bench reiterated the principle from ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd., stating that the exercise of such jurisdiction must be based on sound judicial principles. In this case, the documents clearly showed the land was not included in the final acquisition.

"Ordinarily and as a matter of prudence, the High Court would not entertain a dispute which would require it to adjudicate the contested questions and conflicting claims of the parties to determine the correct facts for due application of the law."

Findings On Possession And Endorsements

The Court examined the 2015 endorsement which stated that a survey of the property was redone and it was found that the appellant was not in possession, nor was the land included in the modified acquisition area of 168 acres. Since neither the appellant nor the respondents were effectively in possession through a legal acquisition process, the prayer for mandamus was deemed maintainable.

"The High Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 merely because in considering the petitioner's right to relief questions of fact may fall to be determined."

The Court concluded that since the land was never formally acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, the appellant could not seek a direction for the issuance of a Final Notification or compensation. The bench upheld the Single Judge's order, noting that the petitioner may agitate any grievance regarding possession before a competent civil forum if so advised. The writ appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Date of Decision: 22 April 2026