"Simple Procedure Not Being Followed By The State" - Telangana HC Provides Relief To Villages In Land Acquisition Proceedings For Hyderabad Pharma City

A Telangana High Court Bench of Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar has allowed a plea by several villagers, by setting aside declarations and consequent proceedings for acquisition of their lands by the Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TSIIC) for the construction of Hyderabad Green Pharma City.

In that context, it was said that, "This Court is at loss to understand as to why the officials manning the relevant positions coming from Indian Administrative Service are not able to understand the basic requirement of law and the procedure that is required to be followed in the matter of acquisition proceedings. In fact, the Special Chief Secretary to Government, Revenue (JA&LA) Department issued memo No.18817/LA/2017 dated 23.10.2017 giving detailed guidelines on to the mandatory procedures that are required to be followed by the Land Acquisition Officers and the District Collectors while undertaking land acquisition under the Act, 2013. But, for the reasons best known, the said detailed guidelines provided in the said memo are also given a go-bye." 

Counsel Ravi Kumar appeared for the petitioners, while Special Government Pleader Harender Pershad represented the Advocate General. 

In this case, the petitions challenged the State's actions under Section 10A of the Act, which exempted the land from a preliminary investigation for social impact and public purpose. The Joint Collector issued a notification under Section 11(1) of the Act, but the first 58 petitioners argued that it was only published in the district gazette, not the state gazette, violating established law. They also claimed they were not given a hearing to raise objections as allowed under Section 15. Additionally, they argued that no rehabilitation and resettlement scheme was introduced or made widely known, as required by Sections 16, 17, and 18.

The petitioners contended that the preliminary notification should have been rescinded within 12 months if no publications were made regarding the resettlement scheme and rehabilitation site, as per Section 19.

On the other hand, the State's counsel argued that objections were considered, a Gram Sabha was conducted, and villagers were informed about the acquisition. They also stated that a public hearing was held, promising additional compensation of Rs. 5 lakh for rehabilitation and resettlement.

The Court expressed its frustration with the lack of understanding among the concerned officials, who are from the IAS cadre, regarding the basic requirements of law and procedures for land acquisition.

It pointed out that the State failed to comply with the mandatory requirements stated in Section 15(2) and Sections 16 to 18 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. These sections involve hearing objections from affected parties, preparing a Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme, reviewing the scheme, and publicizing the approved scheme.

Due to this non-compliance, the Court concluded that the declarations for rehabilitation under Section 19(1) of the Act and the related proceedings are flawed and should be set aside. By extension of the same, the Court also observed that, "This Court is surprised to note as to why the respondents are not able to realize their mistake at least when the issue has come up before this Court and they were put on notice. At least when the matters were brought before this Court, had the respondents applied their minds with sense of responsibility and rectified themselves by following the law, the valuable time could have been saved for the State instead of making efforts to cover up their mistakes. The manner in which these Writ Petitions are contested blindly by the respondents creates a doubt in the mind of the Court as to whether the respondents are acting genuinely with a view to safeguard the interests of the State in furtherance and implementation of the policy of the State or acting deliberately with a view to frustrate the implementation of the policy and objects of the State Government. Had the respondents realized the lacunaes or the defects in the acquisition proceedings, as pointed out by the petitioners before this Court, the valuable time of about three years could have been saved."

Cause Title: Kompoju Pandurangachari v. State Of Telangana

Click here to read/download the Judgment