In Brief
The Supreme Court upheld that a post-acquisition allottee of land (MRPL) under the KIAD Act, 1966 is not a 'person interested' in land acquisition proceedings and cannot be a party to compensation determination hearings. Although MRPL must pay any enhanced compensation awarded, this financial obligation does not confer party status. The Court distinguished prior precedents that applied to direct acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act and confirmed that acquisitions under KIAD Act follow a distinct statutory scheme where the KIADB, not the allottee, is the beneficiary. The High Court erred in remanding the matter to allow MRPL's participation without following the binding precedent of Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.