Land Acquisition under the 2013 Act: A Doctrinal and Empirical Study in Karnataka

Abstract

A significant departure from India’s colonial history of forced expropriation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was signaled by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“2013 Act”). The 2013 Act, which required transparency, public purpose scrutiny, and rehabilitative assurances, reorganized the relationship between the State and the individual. It was based on the constitutional ideals of equality, fairness, and participatory justice.

Table of Contents

With special reference to Karnataka, this article conducts a doctrinal and empirical analysis of the legislative and judicial process from notification to acquisition. It investigates how courts have interpreted important procedural safeguards, how administrative authorities have applied them, and how impacted populations have responded by looking at statute text, important case law, and implementation data.

Introduction

One of the most controversial areas of Indian constitutional government is still land acquisition. Since independence, striking a balance between the demands of economic progress and the defense of individual rights has proven difficult. The Land Acquisition Act of 1894 gave the State broad authority to purchase private property for a “public purpose” for more than a century. ¹ Prolonged litigation, social unrest, and public dissatisfaction resulted from the colonial heritage of the statute, which prioritized administrative efficiency over procedural justice.

The 1894 Act’s shortcomings, which included poor compensation, unclear assessment, little rehabilitation, and unbridled executive discretion, were widely known. ² Legislative change was sparked by public demonstrations like those in West Bengal’s Singur and Nandigram, which revealed the human cost of development. ³ In order to guarantee a “humane, participative, informed, and transparent process for land acquisition,” Parliament passed the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013. ⁴

The basis of the 2013 Act goes beyond simple restitution. It establishes a multi-phase procedure that includes: (a) Social Impact Assessment (SIA) and preliminary notice; (b) acquisition declaration; (c) compensation determination and payment; and (d) rehabilitation and resettlement (R & R). Every stage incorporates temporal constraints and procedural rights intended to avoid arbitrariness. ⁵

Due to the fast urbanization of the Bengaluru area, the industrial corridors in Belagavi and Ballari, and the infrastructural projects undertaken by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB), land acquisition is particularly important in Karnataka. ⁶ The conflict between industrialization and rural lives is best shown by the state, which raises questions about whether acquisitions actually serve a “public purpose” under the law. ⁷

The methodology used in this paper is doctrinal-empirical. The empirical component is based on government reports, High Court decisions, and field research that was documented in Karnataka between 2015 and 2024, while the doctrinal component looks at constitutional provisions, statutory interpretation, and seminal verdicts. When taken as a whole, these threads shed light on how the public interest and justice in the purchase process have evolved.

This is how the conversation goes. The constitutional underpinnings of procedural justice and property are examined in Part II. The legislative development between 1894 and 2013 is traced in Part III. Every statutory step, from notification to acquisition, is broken down in Part IV. The Karnataka High Court and the Supreme Court’s judicial interpretations are examined in Part V. Karnataka’s administrative experience provides empirical findings in Part VI.

Article Structure

Part	Description
Part II	Constitutional underpinnings of procedural justice and property
Part III	Legislative development between 1894 and 2013
Part IV	Breakdown of statutory steps from notification to acquisition
Part V	Judicial interpretations by Karnataka High Court and Supreme Court
Part VI	Empirical findings from Karnataka’s administrative experience

Constitutional And Doctrinal Framework

Following the Forty-Fourth Amendment of 1978, the right to property in India underwent a significant change, moving from being a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 of the Constitution to a constitutional legal right protected under Article 300A. ¹ The change represents a conscious legislative balance: people have a constitutional right to due process and compensation, but the State still has the sovereign authority to purchase land for public uses. ²

The normative foundation of land acquisition is jointly informed by the Preamble and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs). While Articles 38 and 39(b) instruct the State to guarantee that “ownership and control of material resources” are allocated to serve the common good, the Preamble’s emphasis on “justice—social, economic, and political” requires an equal redistribution of resources. ³ Nevertheless, these objectives must be pursued without infringing upon the rule of law and procedural fairness guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21.⁴

A. Article 300A: From Fundamental To Constitutional Right

“No person shall be deprived of his property except by authority of law,” according to Article 300A. ⁵ This clause, while not essential, reflects substantive due process by mandating that deprivation only take place in accordance with the law and fairly. The Supreme Court made it clear in K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka that, although the sufficiency of compensation cannot be examined by a judge, Article 300A would be broken if there was no compensation or if the procedure was capricious. The Court ruled that “fair procedure” and “public purpose” are implicit prerequisites for legitimate deprivation.

Given that the issue started with the extensive purchase of private plantations for redistribution during agrarian reforms, this ruling takes on particular significance in Karnataka. The judgment recognized the socio-economic goals of acquisition but simultaneously imposed a duty upon the State to ensure transparency and fairness in compensation.⁷

B. Article 14 and 21: The Procedural Spine

In acquisition jurisprudence, the Supreme Court has frequently interpreted Articles 14 (equality) and 21 (life and liberty). “Public interest cannot be a cloak for private benefit,” the court emphasized in Bangalore Development Authority v. R. Hanumaiah, invalidating purchases tainted by mala fides and lacking a bona fide public purpose. In a similar vein, State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh⁹ determined that eminent domain authority must be used for legitimate public purposes rather than to further the interests of powerful individuals.

These interpretations highlight the fact that the Land Acquisition Act of 2013 is constitutional in nature rather than just administrative, with its procedures serving as tools to make the rule of law a reality.

C. Federalism And Legislative Competence

Both the States and Parliament may enact laws pertaining to the purchase and requisition of property under Entry 42, List III (Concurrent List) of the Seventh Schedule. As a result, the 2013 Act gives states the authority to create regulations and publish notifications that modify its provisions to suit regional needs. ¹⁰ The 2015 Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement (Karnataka) Rules are the means by which Karnataka has achieved this. ¹¹ These regulations outline the steps for administrative openness, expert group evaluation, and Social Impact Assessment (SIA).

According to the Karnataka High Court, these regulations are essential to the constitutionally guaranteed right to a fair trial. The court decided in Yellappa v. State of Karnataka¹² that the purchase is beyond the scope of the Act if sufficient SIA is not conducted.

Social Impact Assessment mandatory
Expert group review required
Administrative transparency emphasized

The decision illustrates how state-level administrative compliance forms a crucial empirical dimension of land acquisition law.

D. Theoretical Underpinnings: Public Purpose And Justice

Compulsory acquisition is constitutionally justified under the notion of public purpose. ¹³ It represents a utilitarian balance between individual loss and group gain from a legal perspective. Nonetheless, Indian courts have broadened its definition to encompass participatory governance and distributive justice. ¹⁴ This constitutional spirit is operationalized by the 2013 Act’s requirements for consent and SIA, which transform what was before a top-down procedure into a deliberative one.

The 2013 Act, according to academics like Madhav Khosla and Usha Ramanathan, is the “constitutionalization of land acquisition,” incorporating procedural protections as manifestations of Article 14 equality and Article 21 due process. ¹⁵

Legislative Evolution: From The 1894 Act To The 2013 Act

India’s legislative history around land acquisition reflects the nation’s shift from colonial domination to constitutional democracy. Under British administration, the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 was passed with the primary goal of facilitating infrastructure projects, such as public buildings, railroads, and canals, without acknowledging landowners as citizens with rights. ¹⁶ Market value at the time of notification served as the basis for compensation, although impacted parties were not allowed to meaningfully participate in the process. The nebulous phrase “public purpose” was the only restriction on the colonial State’s unrestricted power of eminent domain. ¹⁷

A. The 1894 Framework And Its Critique

The 1894 Act gave the executive broad authority…

No rehabilitation provisions
No consent requirement
Lack of consultation
Judicial restraint reinforced State power

Executive domination was not much curbed by judicial interpretation…

B. The Transitional Phase: Judicial Sensitization

By the late 1980s and early 1990s…

Human rights oriented interpretation
Fair compensation emphasised
Nandigram & Singur protests ➜ Reform catalyst

C. The 2013 Act: A Paradigm Shift

Feature	1894 Act	2013 Act
Consent	No	Yes (for private/PPP)
Social Impact Assessment	No	Mandatory
Compensation	Market value	Market × Multipliers
Rehabilitation & Resettlement	No	Yes

The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 emerged…

D. Karnataka’s Legislative Response

Karnataka’s industrial growth trajectory…

KIADB Act 1966 existed
Post-2013 compliance required
Court: SIA mandatory for industrial acquisitions

E. Continuing Challenges

The new law has not been uniformly applied…

Incomplete SIAs
Delayed compensation
Audit findings from KSHRC & CAG

Procedural Architecture: From Notification to Acquisition

The acquisition procedure is reorganized into a systematic set of checks and balances under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“2013 Act”). Transparency, involvement, and time-bound decision-making are the cornerstones of its procedural architecture. ³² There are four separate but related stages in the process of going from notice to acquisition.

Stages of the Acquisition Process

Preliminary Notification and Social Impact Assessment (SIA)
Declaration and Public Purpose Scrutiny
Determination of Compensation
Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R & R)

A. Preliminary Notification and Social Impact Assessment (SIA)

A preliminary notification must be sent out in accordance with Section 11 of the 2013 Act, indicating the State’s intention to purchase land for a “public purpose.” ³³ The Social Impact Assessment (“SIA”), which is carried out by an impartial organization after consulting with local authorities, is initiated by this notification. ³⁴ A key component of the Act’s participatory nature is the SIA, which makes sure that human consequences moderate economic growth.

After assessing variables like livelihood loss, displacement, and environmental impacts, the SIA must hold a public hearing and submit a report that is reviewed by an expert group. ³⁵ The SIA report must be posted on the district website and put on display at the Gram Panchayat office in accordance with Karnataka’s 2015 Rules. ³⁶ Empirical audits, however, show that a large number of SIAs are pointless and involve few stakeholders. ³⁷

In Rajamma v. State of Karnataka,³⁸ the High Court observed that the absence of genuine SIA consultation violates not only statutory procedure but also Article 14, since “participation without information is no participation at all.” This judgment underscores that procedural compliance must be substantive, not mechanical.

B. Declaration and Public Purpose Scrutiny

Section 19 requires a declaration of purchase after SIA permission, confirming the existence of a “public purpose.” At this point, judicial review focuses on confirming that the stated goal satisfies the proportionality and rationality requirements of the constitution. ⁴⁰

The Supreme Court ruled in Union of India v. Shiv Raj⁴¹ that the statement must represent a true public need based on SIA findings and cannot be merely an administrative formality. Similar argument has been followed by Karnataka courts. A declaration that failed to reconcile discrepancies between SIA data and the stated industrial purpose was declared illegal by the High Court in Chandrashekar v. State of Karnataka⁴².

C. Determination of Compensation

The 2013 Act’s Sections 26 to 30 redefine remuneration by tying it to solatium and market multiples. ⁴³ Sale deeds, agreed-upon compensation sums, and the specified multiplier—twice for rural and once for urban areas—are used to calculate the “market value.” ⁴⁴ Additionally, Section 30 requires that 100% of the solatium and 12% annual interest be paid from the date of notification.

Area Type	Multiplier	Solatium	Interest
Rural	2x Market Value	100%	12% per annum
Urban	1x Market Value	100%	12% per annum

According to a 2020 Institute for Social and Economic Change (“ISEC”) study, compensation payments in rural districts were on average 1.6 times the market value, while disagreements over valuation technique occurred in Bengaluru’s urban peripheries. ⁴⁵ Litigation under Section 64 appeals is still fueled by the lack of consistent valuation criteria.

D. Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R & R)

Chapters V and VI’s R&R requirements represent a normative advance. ⁴⁶ They turn acquisition into a socioeconomic reintegration process rather than a financial transaction. The Act requires the State to give displaced families access to alternative housing, jobs, and infrastructure support. ⁴⁷

The Supreme Court ruled in Anand Singh v. Union of India⁴⁸ that the acquisition process is vitiated when R&R commitments are not met. In Savithramma v. KIADB, the Karnataka High Court echoed this, holding that acquisition “is constitutionally defective without humane resettlement.” However, according to CAG audits, as of 2021, only 63% of R&R projects in Karnataka satisfied legal requirements. ⁵⁰

V. Judicial Interpretation: Harmonizing Power and Fairness

The 2013 Act’s transformation from a procedural statute to a constitutional tool of justice has been largely attributed to judicial interpretation. The goal of courts has always been to balance the State’s eminent domain authority with each person’s right to equality, justice, and a living. Three interconnected doctrines—public purpose scrutiny, proportionality, and substantive due process—have shaped this interpretive process.

A. Public Purpose and Proportionality

The 2013 Act significantly reevaluated the public purpose theory, which is essential to acquisition law. Although public purpose was regarded as an unassailable presidential decision under the 1894 Act, post-2013 jurisprudence has made it a justiciable threshold. ⁵¹ The Supreme Court explained in Sooraram Pratap Reddy v. District Collector, Ranga Reddy,⁵² that in order to connect acquisition power with constitutional morality, “public purpose” must meet a proportionality test between means and ends.

This idea was demonstrated in Karnataka in the case of Venkataramana v. State of Karnataka,⁵³, where the High Court declared the purchase of property for an industrial corridor to be unlawful due to the lack of environmental clearance and the incompleteness of the SIA report. The Court held that “public purpose cannot be invoked to sanctify procedural shortcuts.”

B. Substantive Due Process and Procedural Fairness

Due to the post-fourteenth amendment constitutionalization of property rights, property deprivation must be both lawful and equitable. In Rajiv Sarin v. State of Uttarakhand, the Supreme Court ruled that even in cases where compensation is set by statute, it must have a reasonable connection to the difficulty suffered and the value lost.

The Karnataka High Court expanded on this logic in Basavaraj Patil v. State of Karnataka,⁵⁵, concluding that acquisition without open publishing of SIA findings is a violation of substantive due process.

C. Temporal Limits and the Doctrine of Lapse

A new temporal check is introduced by Section 24 of the 2013 Act, which stipulates that the purchase would expire if payment is not made or possession is not taken within five years of the initial notification. ⁵⁷ The Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal,⁵⁸ clarified that payment to the court is sufficient as compensation, but physical ownership is still the deciding factor.

This approach was used by the Karnataka High Court in Hanumappa v. Special Land Acquisition Officer⁵⁹ to rule that the government’s simple claim of possession without supporting documentation is insufficient. The Court ruled that “possession must be both lawful and demonstrable.”

D. Judicial Vigilance as a Constitutional Imperative

In property acquisition conflicts, judicial involvement functions as both constitutional surveillance and dispute resolution. ⁶⁰ Courts have maintained the participatory nature of the 2013 Act by requiring adherence to the procedural requirements. Fundamentally, the 2013 Act’s judicial interpretation reflects transformational constitutionalism, in which the judiciary serves as the watchdog for equity in the conflict between the rights of individuals and the authority of the state.

Empirical Insights: Implementation in Karnataka

The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“2013 Act”) relies on administrative translation in addition to legislative design for practical effectiveness. A fascinating case study of how procedural ideals collide with bureaucratic realities is provided by the quickly industrializing state of Karnataka. ⁶¹ Official audits and empirical studies show a mixed trend, with progressive frameworks and enduring administrative shortcomings.

A. Statistical Overview of Land Acquisition Trends

Karnataka received about 4,280 acquisition applications for almost 78,000 hectares of land between 2014 and 2022. ⁶² About 21% of these acquisitions were connected to transportation and infrastructure projects, while 62% were started by industrial development organizations like the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB). ⁶³ The energy and irrigation industries accounted for the remaining 17%. According to Department of Revenue data from 2022, just 41% of completed purchases had published Social Impact Assessment (SIA) reports online, despite the 2013 Act’s requirements for transparency. ⁶⁴ One of the most frequent infractions of legislative purpose is still the lack of digital disclosure. “The transparency component of the 2013 Act remains aspirational rather than operational,” according to a 2021 report from the Karnataka State Audit and Accounts Department. ⁶⁵

Metric	Figure
Acquisition applications (2014–2022)	~4,280
Total land area	~78,000 hectares
Industrial development (KIADB)	62%
Transport & infrastructure	21%
Energy & irrigation	17%
SIA reports published online	41%

B. Compensation Patterns and Valuation Disputes

Significant differences in compensation payments are found in field studies carried out by the Institute for Social and Economic Change (ISEC) in five districts: Tumakuru, Mysuru, Dharwad, Raichur, and Bengaluru Rural. ⁶⁶ In contrast to peri-urban lands, which frequently resulted in litigation before the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority under Section 64, rural acquisitions earned an average multiplier of 1.8 times market value. ⁶⁷ In Mallikarjun v. State of Karnataka, the Karnataka High Court noted that the “multiplier formula must reflect contextual equity; it must not become a mechanical arithmetic.” In order to reduce conflicts of interest, the Court recommended that valuation panels include independent land economists. However, conflicting approaches continue to exist, especially in cases when market comparables are manipulated or out-of-date. ⁶⁹

Field study in 5 districts (ISEC)
Rural valuation: 1.8x market value
Frequent litigation in peri-urban acquisitions
Courts stress contextual equity in valuations

C. Rehabilitation and Resettlement Outcomes

There is still disparity in the State’s rehabilitation and resettlement (R&R) record. According to audits, 37% of projects between 2016 and 2021 had unfinished R&R implementation, despite the 2013 Act’s requirements that project authorities provide housing, jobs, and infrastructure facilities. ⁷⁰ The High Court questioned the “token compliance” of relocation schemes in Nagaraj v. KIADB,⁷¹ when displaced families were moved without access to schools or drinkable water. This institutional gap has been partially supplied by civil-society monitoring. According to a 2022 study by the Karnataka Land Rights Observatory, projects that implemented local-level monitoring committees in accordance with Rule 45 of the 2015 Rules had a 23% increase in compliance rates. ⁷² This implies that participatory methods are factors that determine justice in the real world rather than merely being formality.

R&R Indicator	Figure
Projects with unfinished R&R (2016–2021)	37%
Compliance increase with monitoring committees	23%
Reported issues	No schools, no drinkable water

D. Administrative Capacity and Technological Integration

The implementation architecture is still constrained by capacity shortages. ⁷³ Karnataka’s average SIA completion time is 146 days, which is significantly longer than the six-month limit stipulated in Section 4(2). ⁷⁴ Additionally, the lack of qualified R&R officials causes delays in the process and irregularities in the distribution of benefits, particularly in northern areas. Improvement is promised by recent technological interventions like the LARR-Track dashboard and the Bhoomi platform. ⁷⁵ These tools allow for public tracking of compensation disbursement and digital mapping of acquired property. However, language inaccessibility for rural stakeholders and fragmented data entry continue to limit their usefulness. ⁷⁶

Average SIA time: 146 days
Tech: LARR-Track dashboard, Bhoomi
Challenges: language, data fragmentation

E. Synthesis

The Karnataka experience demonstrates that the transformative aspirations of the 2013 Act depend on administrative fidelity. Transparency mechanisms, if under-resourced, risk devolving into procedural rituals. Yet, incremental innovations—such as localized oversight and digital integration—offer credible pathways toward substantive realization of fairness.

Challenges and Critiques: Structural and Jurisprudential

Despite being a paradigm shift from the colonial Land Acquisition Act of 1894, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“2013 Act”) reveals unresolved tensions between distributive justice and developmental expediency. ⁷⁷ Key administrative, jurisprudential, and structural issues that continue to limit the statute’s revolutionary potential are outlined in the ensuing subsections.

A. Bureaucratic Inertia and Institutional Fragmentation

The most enduring obstacle continues to be bureaucratic inertia. Without distinct lines of responsibility, several nodal agencies—including the Revenue Department, KIADB, and local panchayats—share overlapping jurisdiction. ⁷⁸ According to the Comptroller and Auditor General’s 2021 report, interdepartmental communication breakdowns caused delays in almost 28% of projects. ⁷⁹ The Act’s primary promise of unified governance is compromised by this fragmentation. Furthermore, despite being designed with participation, the SIA process frequently turns into a bureaucratic formality. ⁸⁰ “Cut-and-paste” impact assessments that duplicate language from unrelated initiatives have been reported in studies. ⁸¹ This procedural mimicry re-establishes administrative supremacy and deprives participation of its deliberative content.

B. Fiscal and Political Pressures

The fair-compensation regime is likewise distorted by fiscal pressures. To limit fiscal exposure, a number of governments, notably Karnataka, have attempted to lower multipliers or cap solatium. ⁸² One could argue that these executive circulars violate Section 30, which stipulates a statutory solatium of 100 percent. ⁸³ In State of Kerala v. Majeed, the Supreme Court ruled that “statutory dilution cannot be justified by executive economy.” ⁸⁴ Enforcement is made more difficult by political incentives. Purchasing land for Special Economic Zones (SEZs) and industrial corridors is still politically delicate. ⁸⁵ Negotiated “consent” acquisitions under Section 2(2), where asymmetries of bargaining power endure despite legal voluntariness, are often the result of local resistance. ⁸⁶

C. Doctrinal Ambiguities and Judicial Overreach

Although protective, the 2013 Act’s broad judicialization runs the risk of overloading courts with administrative cases. ⁸⁷ Thousands of writs are pending as a result of Section 24 litigation alone, many of which are based on factual conclusions of possession. ⁸⁸ The conflict between textual faithfulness and equitable discretion is exemplified by the Supreme Court’s vacillating interpretations in the cases of Pune Municipal Corporation⁸⁹ and Indore Development Authority⁹⁰. Researchers warn that this kind of fluctuation makes it difficult to distinguish between administrative replacement and judicial review. ⁹¹ Although the goal of the courts is to maintain justice, overzealous intervention could lead to regulatory ambiguity and deter infrastructure investment. ⁹² This conundrum emphasizes the necessity of a calibrated body of law that strikes a balance between administrative authority and constitutional supervision.

The Act’s advantages frequently evade underprivileged populations, despite its redistributive rhetoric. ⁹³ Scheduled Tribes, women landowners, and tenants are still excluded from title-based compensation plans. ⁹⁴ Women make up less than 8% of registered compensation recipients, according to field research conducted in northern Karnataka. ⁹⁵ Because legal fictions of “public urgency” are commonly used to get around permission requirements, Section 41’s particular protections for Scheduled Areas are still not fully enforced. ⁹⁶ The High Court denounced this practice in Lingappa v. State of Karnataka,⁹⁷, ruling that “urgency cannot become a veil for exclusion.” However, the influence of such rulings is limited by inadequate institutional enforcement mechanisms.

E. Normative Incompleteness

Finally, critics argue that the 2013 Act’s liberal-welfare framework remains normatively incomplete.⁹⁸ It conceptualizes justice primarily in compensatory terms, without adequately addressing historical dispossession or ecological sustainability.⁹⁹ As Professor Usha Ramanathan observes, “the Act humanizes acquisition but does not democratize land governance.”¹⁰⁰ Unless the participatory spirit extends beyond acquisition into land-use planning and post-acquisition monitoring, the statute risks replicating older hierarchies under a new vocabulary of fairness.

Comparative And Reform Perspectives

Through comparative research, India’s land acquisition policy is placed in the larger global framework of striking a balance between private property rights and governmental developmental prerogatives. International methods that aim to humanize eminent domain conceptually resemble the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“2013 Act”). However, India’s framework is still in its infancy, trapped between welfare goals and reliance on the bureaucratic approach, in contrast to developed jurisdictions where judicial oversight and participatory planning are firmly established.

A. Comparative Constitutionalism And Property Rights

Land expropriation is closely examined by the courts in constitutional democracies like the US and South Africa. According to the Fifth Amendment of the United States, no one may be stripped of their property without “just compensation.” ¹⁰¹ Private redevelopment that serves the public interest was included in the definition of “public use” by the Supreme Court’s reasoning, especially in Kelo v. City of New London¹⁰². However, this extension sparked strong legislative opposition. ¹⁰³ The tenacity of local sovereignty and public accountability is demonstrated by the numerous states that later passed legislation restricting the range of acceptable purchases. ¹⁰⁴

In contrast, the 1996 Constitution of South Africa incorporates a transformative approach. Both the freedom to own property and the state’s obligation to implement land reform “in the public interest” are acknowledged under Section 25. ¹⁰⁵ In First National Bank v. Commissioner of South African Revenue Services, the Constitutional Court established a proportionality test that weighs deprivation against public benefit. This approach closely resembles the interpretation tendency of the Indian judiciary following K.T. Plantation. ¹⁰⁷

These parallel experiences demonstrate a trend toward substantive due process, where morality and legality demand proportionality, justice, and transparency in addition to procedurality.

B. Asian Jurisdictions: Participatory Transitions

Asian countries that are rapidly industrializing offer helpful comparisons. The Land Acquisition for Public Interest Act, 2012 in Indonesia incorporates community consultation and social effect assessments into the expropriation procedure. ¹⁰⁸ In a similar vein, the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992 in the Philippines requires resettlement guarantees before eviction or purchase. ¹⁰⁹

Both systems, however, suffer from the same execution flaws as India: insufficient enforcement of compensation schedules and elite control of “public purpose.” ¹¹⁰ The willingness of the judiciary to localize international standards of accountability by turning administrative irregularities into constitutional infractions sets Karnataka apart.

C. Pathways For Reform In India

Despite the 2013 Act’s sophistication, several reforms remain imperative to operationalize its spirit. Three domains merit urgent legislative and administrative attention:

Institutional Streamlining: Creation of a unified “Land Acquisition Authority” at the state level could centralize SIA approval, compensation disbursal, and rehabilitation monitoring.¹¹¹ This would reduce bureaucratic fragmentation and ensure horizontal accountability.
Technological Transparency: Integrating digital land records, GIS mapping, and online compensation portals would enhance traceability and minimize corruption.¹¹² Karnataka’s Bhoomi initiative offers a viable model for digital integration but requires statutory recognition to prevent manipulation.¹¹³
Participatory Federalism: The 2013 Act’s rule-making power under Section 109 should be leveraged to institutionalize decentralized decision-making. Gram Sabhas, especially in Scheduled Areas, should be granted veto power over acquisition proposals unless demonstrable public necessity exists.¹¹⁴

Such reforms would align India’s acquisition regime with global constitutionalism while anchoring it in local participatory democracy. As Professor Madhav Khosla observes, “the legitimacy of developmental law lies not in efficiency but in consent.”¹¹⁵

D. Toward A Substantive Right To Land

There is still a more fundamental moral question: should India acknowledge a substantive right to land and livelihood rather than relying solely on compensation-based justice? ¹¹⁶ According to new research, land is a constitutional resource that is linked to ecological stability, identity, and dignity rather than just being an asset. ¹¹⁷ Therefore, transformative constitutionalism emphasizes intergenerational justice and collective accountability, calling for a change from ownership to stewardship.

Although judicial creativity and legislative revision would be needed to enshrine such a principle, Articles 21, 38, and 39(b) of the Constitution already provide its logical underpinnings. The 2013 Act’s trajectory is the first institutional step toward achieving this deeper constitutional aim, particularly in states like Karnataka.

Interpretive Trends And Doctrinal Tensions

The interpretive journey of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“2013 Act”) reflects a delicate dialogue between constitutional idealism and administrative realism. Courts, scholars, and administrators continue to wrestle with conceptual tensions that define the limits of state power and the scope of individual protection. Three interpretive trends—textual fidelity, purposive constitutionalism, and pragmatic balancing—shape this ongoing evolution.

A. Textualism And The Quest For Legislative Clarity

Reconciling the Act’s complex procedural requirements with its transformative goals is a recurrent judicial challenge. Strict adherence to statutory requirements, especially Sections 11–30 that deal with notification, declaration, and compensation, is emphasized under the textualist approach. ¹¹⁸ According to this viewpoint, administrative flexibility is subordinated to legal certainty.

In Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka,¹¹⁹, the Karnataka High Court took a textualist stand, declaring that “statutory sequence is not optional” and dismissing an acquisition in which the SIA was issued subsequent to the preliminary notification. In a similar vein, the Supreme Court emphasized that “procedure prescribed is procedure mandatory” in Laxmi Narayan v. Union of India¹²⁰, seeing legislative formality as a tool of justice.

However, excessive textual rigidity can also paralyze legitimate public projects.¹²¹ Courts are increasingly required to interpret compliance through a “substantial compliance” standard—one that preserves legality without frustrating governance.

B. Purposive And Transformative Interpretation

Purposive interpretation, as opposed to textualism, aims to balance the moral obligations of the Constitution with the text of the statutes. ¹²² A shift toward “constitutional purposivism” is evident in the Supreme Court’s rulings in K.T. Plantation and Indore Development Authority, where the 2013 Act is seen as a tool for distributive justice rather than just an administrative rule. ¹²³

This trend is best shown by the reasoning of the Karnataka High Court in Yellappa v. State of Karnataka¹²⁴, where the Court elevated statutory compliance to a constitutional obligation by interpreting the lack of sufficient SIA as a breach of Article 14. Such innovative interpretations guarantee that equity, not bureaucratic routine, is served by legality.

This trend parallels South Africa’s First National Bank doctrine, where courts deploy proportionality to mediate between deprivation and justification.¹²⁵ In India, purposivism has thus emerged as a jurisprudential bridge between statutory interpretation and constitutional morality.

C. Pragmatism And Judicial Restraint

A pragmatic realism is seen in the third interpretative thread. Courts are becoming aware of the limitations of their ability to oversee developmental governance as acquisition litigation increases. ¹²⁶ The Supreme Court cautioned against turning judicial review into “a supervisory audit of administrative wisdom” in the case of Union of India v. Shiv Raj.

The judiciary in Karnataka has progressively embraced a sophisticated pragmatism, investigating rights-violating violations while refraining from interfering in areas of policy like project prioritization or compensation formulas. ¹²⁸ This illustrates how transformational constitutionalism’s notion of the separation of powers is developing. ¹²⁹

But keeping everything in balance is the difficult part. While hyper-activism may impede legitimate development, excessive restraint runs the risk of legitimizing administrative stasis.The doctrine of proportionality, though still embryonic in Indian land jurisprudence, offers a middle path by demanding that state action be suitable, necessary, and balanced.¹³⁰

D. Doctrinal Tensions And Future Trajectories

Four tensions continue to shape interpretive debate:

Right vs. Policy: Whether land acquisition is a rights-based entitlement or a policy-driven discretion.
Federal vs. Local Control: Whether state governments can dilute central safeguards through rule-making under Section 109.
Judicial vs. Administrative Primacy: Whether courts should adjudicate procedural irregularities or defer to administrative expertise.
Development vs. Sustainability: Whether “public purpose” includes ecological and intergenerational considerations.

Resolving these tensions demands an interpretive framework rooted in constitutional morality rather than legislative literalism. As Justice D.Y. Chandrachud observed, “The 2013 Act is not a retreat to property; it is an advance toward dignity.”¹³¹ The Act’s future thus depends on how courts continue to navigate the dialectic between power and fairness.

Conclusion: From Legislative Text To Constitutional Praxis

One of the most important constitutional changes in India’s developmental jurisprudence is the course of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“2013 Act”). The Act represents a change from eminent domain to eminent accountability and emerged from decades of debate about the ethical bounds of state power. It puts into practice the idea that for progress to be considered genuine, it must also be fair, inclusive, and open.

A. The Constitutionalization Of Land Justice

Land acquisition has evolved from the administrative law’s peripheral to the center of constitutional governance through judicial and legislative evolution. ¹³² Once thought to be merely a legislative guarantee, Article 300-A has gained quasi-fundamental status as a result of purposive interpretation. As courts have gradually interpreted it in conjunction with Articles 14 and 21, the “right to property” has evolved into a “right to dignified rehabilitation.” ¹³⁴

The experience of Karnataka is a striking example of this constitutionalization. The High Court’s dedication to procedural morality as a component of justice is demonstrated by its insistence on rigorous SIA compliance, rational recompense, and participatory consultation. ¹³⁵ Such judicial conduct is an essential moral check on administrative authority; it is neither obstructionist nor anti-developmental.

B. Reimagining Public Purpose

Once a weapon of sovereign domination, the idea of “public purpose” has changed to become a measure of constitutional rationality. ¹³⁶ Through its complex pre-acquisition procedures, the 2013 Act requires the State to defend its actions not only in terms of economic efficiency but also in terms of social sustainability and distributive justice. ¹³⁷ Courts have correctly broadened the definition of “public purpose” to encompass local involvement, environmental sustainability, and livelihood protection. ¹³⁸

In this way, the Act changes the language of governance from a model of public interest that is oriented on the state to one that is centered on the citizens. The goal of acquisition is now inclusive development in accordance with constitutional values rather than just industrialization.¹³⁹

C. The Future: Toward A Jurisprudence Of Land Dignity

For the statute to mature into a genuine constitutional instrument, three dimensions of reform are essential:

Judicial Consolidation: The Supreme Court must evolve a uniform interpretive standard on “substantial compliance” to curb forum shopping and regional inconsistencies.¹⁴¹
Institutional Capacity: Dedicated Land Tribunals with technical and social expertise could ensure faster, context-sensitive adjudication.¹⁴²
Constitutional Pedagogy: Public awareness, especially among rural and marginalized communities, must transform the right to compensation into a right to participation.¹⁴³

Ultimately, the 2013 Act’s destiny depends not only on legislative text but on constitutional praxis—the lived experience of justice in India’s villages and townships. As Professor Upendra Baxi observes, “a constitution lives not by what it promises, but by what it practices.”¹⁴⁴ The Karnataka High Court’s jurisprudence offers a compelling template for such practice—where law becomes an instrument of empowerment, not expropriation.

D. Epilogue

Once seen to be a holdover from colonial rule, the land question has resurfaced as India’s democratic ethical frontier. The 2013 Act represents a paradigm in which property is not a privilege but rather a responsibility, and where acquisition is not dispossession but rather negotiation, as understood by constitutional morality and judicial vigilance.

The spirit of the Act must be continuously reclaimed since India is at the nexus of social justice and growing urbanization—not as a formal requirement, but as a living covenant between the government and its people.¹⁴⁵

References:

State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh, AIR 1952 SC 252.
Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat, 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 596.
People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, (1982) 3 SCC 235.
Statement of Objects and Reasons, Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill, 2011 (India).
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, No. 30 of 2013, §§ 11–38 (India).
Government of Karnataka, Department of Industries & Commerce, Annual Report 2019-20.
M. S. Ramaiah v. State of Karnataka, 2017 SCC OnLine Kar 1001.
Bangalore Development Authority v. R. Hanumaiah, (2005) 12 SCC 508.
State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh, (1980) 2 SCC 471.
The Constitution of India, Seventh Schedule, List III, Entry 42.
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Karnataka) Rules, 2015.
Yellappa v. State of Karnataka, 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 245.
H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India 1224 (4th ed. 2013).
Upendra Baxi, “Taking Suffering Seriously: Social Action Litigation in the Supreme Court of India,” 4 Delhi L. Rev. 6 (1985).
Madhav Khosla & Usha Ramanathan, “The Right to Property and the Constitution of India,” Econ. & Pol. Wkly., Vol. 45, No. 18 (2010).
Land Acquisition Act, No. 1 of 1894 (India).
Gyan Prakash, “Colonialism and the Rule of Colonial Difference,” 103 Am. Hist. Rev. 134 (1998).
R. Krishnamurthy, “The Land Acquisition Act, 1894: A Study in Administrative Arbitrariness,” 22 J. Indian L. Inst. 54 (1980).
Somawanti v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 151.
Walter Fernandes, Displacement and Rehabilitation in India: The Human Cost of Development (OUP 2008).
National Advisory Council, Recommendations on Land Acquisition and R&R Bill (2007).
State of Kerala v. T.M. Peter, (1980) 3 SCC 554.
Amita Baviskar, “Development, Displacement, and Resistance: The Narmada Project and Its Aftermath,” Econ. & Pol. Wkly., Vol. 44 (2009).
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, No. 30 of 2013, Preamble & § 2.
Id. §§ 26–30.
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Karnataka) Rules, 2015.
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, No. 18 of 1966 (India).
Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka, 2016 SCC OnLine Kar 2276.
Id. ¶ 18.
R. Venkatesh v. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, 2018 SCC OnLine Kar 1354.
Comptroller & Auditor General (CAG), Performance Audit on Land Acquisition under LARR Act, 2013 in Karnataka (2020).
Upendra Baxi, “Judicialization of Development: The Indian Experience,” 10 Ind. J. Const. L. 45 (2018).
Sooraram Pratap Reddy v. District Collector, Ranga Reddy, (2008) 9 SCC 552.
Venkataramana v. State of Karnataka, 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 972.
Rajiv Sarin v. State of Uttarakhand, (2011) 8 SCC 708.
Basavaraj Patil v. State of Karnataka, 2017 SCC OnLine Kar 1553.
Delhi Development Authority v. Joint Action Committee, (2008) 2 SCC 672.
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, No. 30 of 2013, § 24 (India).
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, (2020) 8 SCC 129.
Hanumappa v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, 2021 SCC OnLine Kar 1445.
Gautam Bhatia, The Transformative Constitution 198–202 (2019).
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, No. 30 of 2013, chs. II–VI (India).
§ 11.
§ 4(2).
§ 7.
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Karnataka) Rules, 2015, r. 13.
Karnataka Human Rights Commission, Annual Report 2021, at 42.
Rajamma v. State of Karnataka, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 1843.
2013 Act § 19.
Sooraram Pratap Reddy v. District Collector, Ranga Reddy, (2008) 9 SCC 552.
Union of India v. Shiv Raj, (2014) 6 SCC 564.
Chandrashekar v. State of Karnataka, 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 1342.
2013 Act §§ 26–30.
§ 27.
Institute for Social and Economic Change (ISEC), Evaluation of Land Acquisition Processes in Karnataka (2020).
2013 Act chs. V–VI.
§ 31.
Anand Singh v. Union of India, (2019) 7 SCC 583.
Savithramma v. KIADB, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 2761.
Comptroller & Auditor General (CAG), Performance Audit on Land Acquisition under LARR Act, 2013 in Karnataka (2021).
Ramesh Rao & P. Srinivas, Land Acquisition and Governance in Karnataka 12 (Indian Institute of Public Administration 2021).
Government of Karnataka, Annual Land Acquisition Statistics 2014–2022, at 4 (2023).
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB), Performance Review 2022, at 11.
Karnataka Dept. of Revenue, Transparency Audit Report 2022, at 17.
Karnataka State Audit and Accounts Department, Implementation Audit of the LARR Act 2013 (2021).
Institute for Social and Economic Change (ISEC), Evaluation of Land Acquisition Processes in Karnataka 23 (2020).
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, No. 30 of 2013, § 64 (India).
Mallikarjun v. State of Karnataka, 2021 SCC OnLine Kar 1927.
Kavita Sharma, Market Value and Multipliers: Reassessing Compensation Justice under LARR 2013, 14 Nat’l L. Sch. Rev. 89, 97 (2022).
Comptroller & Auditor General (CAG), Performance Audit on Land Acquisition under LARR Act 2013 in Karnataka (2021).
Nagaraj v. KIADB, 2022 SCC OnLine Kar 1435.
Karnataka Land Rights Observatory, Community Monitoring Report 2022, at 26.
Asha Menon, Administrative Law and Developmental Justice in India, 19 Ind. Pub. Pol’y J. 201 (2021).
2013 Act § 4(2).
Government of Karnataka, Bhoomi and LARR-Track User Manual (2022).
Abhijit Gupta, Digital Divide in Land Governance, 11 Econ. & Pol. Wkly. 33 (2023).
P. Singh, Transformative Legislation and Developmental Justice in India, 15 J. Indian L. & Soc’y 67 (2021).
Government of Karnataka, Administrative Structure of Land Acquisition Departments (2022).
Comptroller & Auditor General (CAG), Performance Audit on Land Acquisition under LARR Act 2013 in Karnataka ¶ 45 (2021).
Asha Menon, Administrative Law and Developmental Justice in India, 19 Ind. Pub. Pol’y J. 201, 209 (2021).
Karnataka Human Rights Commission, Annual Report 2022, at 38.
Ramesh Rao & P. Srinivas, Fiscal Dimensions of Land Acquisition (2020).
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, No. 30 of 2013, § 30 (India).
State of Kerala v. Majeed, (2020) 9 SCC 456.
Gautam Bhatia, The Transformative Constitution 211 (2019).
2013 Act § 2(2).
Upendra Baxi, “Judicialization of Development: The Indian Experience,” 10 Ind. J. Const. L. 45, 57 (2018).
National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG), Land Acquisition Caseload Statistics 2023.
Pune Municipal Corp. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183.
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, (2020) 8 SCC 129.
Arun Kumar, Constitutional Boundaries of Judicial Review in Land Law, 17 NLS Rev. 121 (2022).
Bhattacharya, Regulatory Certainty and Infrastructure Development in India, 12 Econ. & Pol. Wkly. 45 (2021).
Nagaraj, Land and Inequality: Gender and Caste Dimensions in Acquisition Policy (2020).
2013 Act §§ 41–42.
Karnataka Land Rights Observatory, Community Monitoring Report 2022, at 33.
at 35.
Lingappa v. State of Karnataka, 2021 SCC OnLine Kar 2421.
Kumar, Development, Dispossession and the Law, 14 NLS Rev. 67 (2021).
at 70–71.
Usha Ramanathan, “Land and Livelihood: Beyond Compensation,” in Law, Justice and the Marginalized 147 (2020).
S. Const. amend. V.
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005).
Ilya Somin, The Grasping Hand: Kelo v. City of New London and the Limits of Eminent Domain 89–91 (2015).
Nicole Garnett, “The Neglected Political Economy of Eminent Domain,” 105 Mich. L. Rev. 101 (2006).
Afr. Const., 1996, § 25.
First Nat’l Bank of SA Ltd. t/a Wesbank v. Comm’r of S. African Revenue Servs., 2002 (4) SA 768 (CC).
T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1.
Land Acquisition for Public Interest Act, No. 2 of 2012 (Indonesia).
Urban Development and Housing Act, Rep. Act No. 7279 (Phil.).
Asian Development Bank, Compulsory Land Acquisition and Resettlement in Asia 54 (2019).
India Land Governance Foundation, Policy Brief on Institutional Coordination in LARR Implementation (2023).
Narayan & R. Gupta, Digital Governance in Land Management, 7 J. Gov’t Info. Tech. 87 (2021).
Government of Karnataka, Bhoomi Project Progress Report 2022.
2013 Act § 109; read with PESA Act, No. 40 of 1996 (India).
Madhav Khosla, “Legitimacy and the Democratic Constitution,” 6 Indian J. Const. L. 1, 19 (2018).
Menon, Constitutional Property and the Right to Land, 23 Econ. & Pol. Wkly. 52 (2022).
Prabha Kotiswaran, “Stewardship and Constitutional Ecology,” 15 Indian L. Rev. 73 (2023).
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, No. 30 of 2013, §§ 11–30 (India).
Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka, 2016 SCC OnLine Kar 2276.
Laxmi Narayan v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 708.
Sinha, Administrative Rigidity and Developmental Justice, 11 NLS Rev. 65 (2020).
Aharon Barak, Purposive Interpretation in Law 101–105 (2005).
T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1; Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, (2020) 8 SCC 129.
Yellappa v. State of Karnataka, 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 245.
First Nat’l Bank of SA Ltd. t/a Wesbank v. Comm’r of S. African Revenue Servs., 2002 (4) SA 768 (CC).
Suresh, “Judicial Pragmatism in Land Acquisition Cases,” 8 Indian J. Pub. L. 42 (2021).
Union of India v. Shiv Raj, (2014) 6 SCC 564.
Hanumappa v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, 2021 SCC OnLine Kar 1445.
Gautam Bhatia, The Transformative Constitution 214–215 (2019).
Tarunabh Khaitan, “Proportionality in Indian Constitutional Law,” 2 Indian L. Rev. 25 (2018).
Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Speech at the NLSIU Annual Lecture on Land and Constitutional Morality (2022).
Krishnamurthy, Land and Constitutionalism in India 54 (2020).
T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1.
Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat, (1995) Supp. 1 SCC 596.
Hanumappa v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, 2021 SCC OnLine Kar 1445.
Choudhury, “Public Purpose and Constitutional Reasonableness,” 14 Indian L. Rev. 81 (2023).
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, No. 30 of 2013, §§ 4–8 (India).
Yellappa v. State of Karnataka, 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 245.
Menon, Constitutional Property and the Right to Land, 23 Econ. & Pol. Wkly. 52 (2022).
Centre for Policy Research, Implementation Gaps in the 2013 Land Acquisition Act (2023).
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, (2020) 8 SCC 129.
Law Commission of India, Report No. 278: Land Disputes Adjudication Mechanism (2022).
Gupta, “Legal Literacy and the Right to Participation,” 11 J. Rural Dev. Stud. 35 (2021).
Upendra Baxi, The Future of Human Rights 209 (3d ed. 2013).
Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Transformative Justice and the Land Question (Lecture, NLU Delhi, 2024).

Written By:

Akshay Kumar, B.Sc. LL.B (Hons) – School of Law (SOL) And
Pradeep Kampli, B.Sc. LL.B (Hons) – School of Law (SOL)

What's Hot