KSLU Solved Question Papers
Land Law
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 10
2022 Oct (100 marks) Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
KSLU Solved Question Papers
Land Law
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 10
2022 Oct (100 marks) Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
First published on munotes.in on 21 October 2026.
Published by munotes.in, Mumbai.
Model answers written and edited by the munotes.in editorial desk.
Passages from this volume may be quoted, in print, online or by an AI system, with credit: name munotes.in and link to this volume's page. The volume may not be reproduced as a whole. Full terms at munotes.in/content-license.
munotes.in is an independent study resource for students of Karnataka State Law University. It is not affiliated with Karnataka State Law University, and is not endorsed by it.
The University does not publish an official answer key for this paper. The answers in this volume are model answers, written to show how a full-mark answer is built. They are a study aid, not an authority on what an examiner marked.
The question paper reproduced here is the paper as set by Karnataka State Law University at the 2022 Oct (100 marks) examination.
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2022 Oct (100 marks) examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2022 Oct (100 marks) examination, reproduced as Karnataka State Law University set them, in the order it set them. Long reading passages are shortened to their first and last lines and our summary; the original paper prints them in full. Only the answers are ours. See the original question paper.
Duration 3 hours · Total marks 100 · 13 questions answered
How to use this volume
Solve the paper first, under exam conditions and against the clock. Then read the answers here and mark your own. Reading a solution before attempting the question feels productive and teaches very little, because recognising an answer is not the same as being able to write one.
Answer
For full marks, cover: Part A, food security: why the 2013 Act protects farmland; the bar on irrigated multi-cropped land and the last-resort exception (section 10(1) and (2)); replacement land or deposit (section 10(3)); the cap on agricultural land (section 10(4)); linear projects; Karnataka's section 10-A. Part B, minimum compensation: the First Schedule as a minimum package; market value and its three bases (section 26(1)) with the Explanations; the multiplier (section 26(2)); the floor price and shares (section 26(3)); assets and the seven heads of section 28; experts (section 29); solatium and the twelve per cent addition (section 30); individual awards, tenants and tax; cases; conclusion.
Every large acquisition takes land out of farming. Where the land is fertile and irrigated, the loss to the country's food supply can be serious and lasting. The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 therefore gives a whole chapter, Chapter III, to a "special provision to safeguard food security".
The social impact study must assess the land and livelihoods affected, and the food security check uses those findings. An Expert Group or the Government may conclude that less land, or another site, will serve. Section 8 then requires the Government to choose the area causing least disturbance. The safeguard also links with rehabilitation. Farmers and labourers who lose fertile land lose their livelihood too, and they are affected families entitled to rehabilitation under the Act.
Karnataka Act 16 of 2019 inserted a new section for the State, section 10-A of the Act. By notification in the public interest, the State may exempt listed projects from Chapters II and III. Those chapters contain the social impact study and the food security provisions. The list includes defence, infrastructure, irrigation, drinking water, affordable housing, State industrial corridors, and projects whose land stays with the State. The State must still keep the land to the minimum needed. So in Karnataka the food security safeguard does not bind exempted projects.
The First Schedule is headed "Compensation for land owners". It states that its components constitute the minimum compensation package for those whose land is acquired. The package also covers tenants under section 3(c), in a proportion the Government decides. The Government may give more, but not less.
The Collector takes the highest of three figures:
The date of valuation is the date of the preliminary notification under section 11. Under the Explanations:
Market value is multiplied by a factor. In rural areas it is between 1.00 and 2.00, depending on the distance of the project from the urban area, as notified. In urban areas it is one.
Where market value cannot be found, the State must fix a floor price from similar adjoining land. This applies where transactions are restricted by law, where no sale deeds exist for three years, or where no guidance value is notified. A Requiring Body may offer its shares as part compensation, but never above twenty-five per cent of the value. No owner can be compelled to take them. The Collector must also update market values before any acquisition begins.
Compensation includes all assets attached to the land (section 27). Under section 28, the Collector considers seven heads:
Under section 29, engineers value buildings, and experts in agriculture, forestry or horticulture value trees and crops.
In a rural area at the highest multiplier, the land part of the award can reach four times the market value. Market value is doubled, and a solatium equal to that figure is added. This is in addition to assets, damages and the twelve per cent addition.
Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2019) 9 SCC 304. Section 3J of the National Highways Act, 1956 denied solatium and interest to owners whose land was taken for highways. The Supreme Court held it violated Article 14, since such owners were no different from those under the general law. It noted the 2015 order applying the 2013 Act's Schedules to Fourth Schedule acquisitions.
Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona, (1988) 3 SCC 751. Under the 1894 Act, the Court held that market value is what a willing buyer would pay a willing seller on the valuation date. Comparable sales of similar land nearby are the best evidence, adjusted for plus and minus factors. Section 26 now builds that method into a formula.
K.T. Plantation Pvt Ltd v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1. A Constitution Bench held that the right to compensation is "inbuilt" in Article 300A. A law may not simply say that no compensation shall be paid. The minimum package gives that principle a statutory floor.
Conclusion. The 2013 Act guards food security by barring the acquisition of irrigated multi-cropped land except as a last resort within limits. It also requires replacement land or a deposit. It also caps the acquisition of farmland generally, though Karnataka may exempt notified projects. It guarantees a minimum compensation package. That package starts from the highest of guidance value, average sale price or agreed price, multiplied in rural areas. Assets, damages, a hundred per cent solatium and twelve per cent a year are added.
The rest of the answers
You have read the question paper and its first answer in full. Buy the solved papers once and you can read every answer of every solved paper in this semester.
Solved papers: ₹499 Already bought it? Sign in
The question paper itself stays free.
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.