Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz and Others vs Government of Karnataka and Others

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 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 power of money decreases over time due to inflation – What the appellants herein could have bought with the compensation in 2003 cannot do in 2025 – It is, therefore, of utmost importance that the determination of the award and disbursal of compensation in case of acquisition of land should be made with promptitude. [Para 48]