Landless Labourers Cannot Be Shut Out of R&R Inquiry Even After Acquisition Is Complete, Rules Telangana High Court
The Telangana High Court has held that the statutory obligation to determine Rehabilitation and Resettlement entitlements under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 survives even after acquisition proceedings are complete, and has directed the District Collector to enquire into the claims of landless agricultural labourers affected by the Hyderabad Green Pharma City project within three months.
The High Court for the State of Telangana, in a common order disposing of two writ petitions, has ruled that landless agricultural labourers displaced from their livelihoods by the Hyderabad Green Pharma City land acquisition retain the right to have their Rehabilitation and Resettlement claims examined, notwithstanding the fact that declarations under Section 19(1) of the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the Act of 2013) had been issued, awards had been passed, compensation of approximately Rs.1,097.82 crores had been paid to landowners, and possession had been handed over to the Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TGIIC). Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy, sitting singly, declined to set aside the Section 19(1) declarations but held that the R&R obligation owed to each affected family individually had not been discharged and directed the District Collector to conduct a fresh enquiry.
The Dispute Before the Court
The two writ petitions were filed by Kanemoni Saradamma and others (W.P. No.14670 of 2021) and Sanda Vajramma and others (W.P. No.24626 of 2021). The petitioners described themselves as landless agricultural labourers residing in Medipally and Kurmidda Villages, Yacharam Mandal, who depended entirely upon the agricultural lands proposed to be acquired for the Hyderabad Green Pharma City project. In addition to working as labourers, they collected biomasses for household and cattle use from those lands and held MGNREGS job cards.
Acquisition proceedings for the project had commenced in 2016, through a combination of compulsory acquisition under the Act of 2013 and voluntary procurement under G.O.Ms.No.45 dated 15.07.2015, G.O.Ms.No.123 dated 30.07.2015, and the Telangana Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 2017 (Act 21 of 2017). The petitioners in W.P. No.14670 of 2021 challenged declarations issued under Section 19(1) in respect of lands in Medipally and Kurmidda Villages and sought compliance with Sections 16, 17, 18 and 31 of the Act before possession was taken. The petitioners in W.P. No.24626 of 2021 additionally challenged the taking of possession of lands procured through negotiated agreements without complying with the R&R provisions, and also invoked Sections 15, 16, 17, 18 and 31/31A of the Act.
The petitioners had submitted representations to the District Collector in October 2020, on 19.06.2021, and on 03.09.2021, requesting recognition as project affected families and preparation of an R&R Scheme. Those representations received no response. The writ petitions were filed in 2021, after awards had been passed in June and July of that year.
Five Legal Issues Framed
Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy identified five points for determination: whether the petitioners had locus standi; whether the Section 19(1) declarations could be set aside at this stage; whether an alleged change in public purpose from a Pharma City to a proposed Future City vitiated the acquisition; whether lands procured through negotiated purchase were excluded from the R&R provisions; and whether the petitioners' claims involved disputed questions of fact for the statutory authority.
The State, represented by the Advocate General, opposed the writ petitions on multiple grounds. It contended that the acquisition had attained finality, that the petitioners had approached the Court only after awards were passed, that nothing beyond MGNREGS job cards had been placed on record to establish dependence on the acquired lands, that the doctrine of impossibility precluded setting aside declarations after Rs.1,097.82 crores in compensation had been paid and possession transferred, and that only four out of twenty villages in Yacharam Mandal had been acquired, leaving alternative employment available. The Advocate General did, however, fairly concede that if the petitioners had submitted representations, those could be examined by the competent authority in accordance with law.
Locus Standi of Landless Labourers Under the 2013 Act
The Court rejected the State's challenge to locus standi. The Act of 2013, it held, marks a deliberate departure from the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which was largely confined to compensating titleholders. Section 3(c) of the Act of 2013 expressly includes agricultural labourers, tenants, share-croppers and artisans whose primary source of livelihood is affected by acquisition within the definition of “affected family”. Sections 3(x), 3(g) and 3(q) correspondingly widen the class of persons interested.
The Court held it would be incongruous to accept that a person for whose benefit Sections 16 to 18 and the Second Schedule were enacted could have no standing to complain that the mandatory exercise was never undertaken. Locus standi, the Court reasoned, must be tested with reference to the nature of the right asserted, not the ultimate success of the claim. At the same time, the Court acknowledged that whether MGNREGS job cards alone established dependence on the acquired lands was a matter for enquiry, not threshold rejection.
Why the Section 19(1) Declarations Were Not Set Aside
The Court accepted that the statutory scheme under the Act of 2013 is unambiguous. Sections 16 to 18 cast a mandatory obligation on the Administrator for Rehabilitation and Resettlement to conduct a survey and census of affected families, prepare a draft R&R Scheme, invite objections, hold public hearings and obtain approval. Only thereafter is the Collector required to pass an R&R Award under Section 31. Section 38 expressly prohibits taking possession until compensation and R&R entitlements have both been provided. The declaration under Section 19 itself must be accompanied by a summary of the R&R Scheme. Admittedly, none of this was done in respect of the petitioners.
Despite this finding, the Court declined to annul the Section 19(1) declarations. The awards passed in June and July 2021, the disbursement of approximately Rs.1,097.82 crores to landowners, the transfer of possession to TGIIC under panchanamas, and the fact that the petitioners' challenge came only after all these steps were complete, all weighed against setting aside the declarations. The Court observed that relief under Article 226 is discretionary, and annulling the declarations would unsettle a completed acquisition, reopen awards in favour of numerous landowners not before the Court, and render infructuous the substantial public expenditure already incurred. The Court also held that the petitioners, having submitted representations from October 2020 onwards, could not plausibly claim total ignorance of an acquisition of this magnitude in their own villages.
However, the Court was careful to separate the question of the declarations from the question of the R&R obligation. Refusing to set aside the declarations, it held, did not extinguish the statutory duty to identify affected families and determine their entitlements. That obligation is owed to each affected family individually and does not depend on the survival of the Section 19(1) declarations. An enquiry followed by an award under Section 31, if the petitioners are found eligible, is fully capable of being undertaken even after acquisition is complete.
Alleged Change in Public Purpose
The petitioners had argued that the purpose of the acquisition had shifted from establishing the Hyderabad Green Pharma City to developing a proposed Future City, making the original acquisition unsustainable and requiring fresh proceedings from the preliminary notification stage.
The Court rejected this contention on two grounds. First, no material was placed before it to establish that the original purpose had actually been abandoned or substituted. Second, and more fundamentally, a change-of-purpose plea is ordinarily available to persons whose land has been acquired and who assert that their property was taken for one purpose and applied to another. The petitioners hold no title to the acquired lands. Their claim rests on livelihood dependence, and their R&R entitlements, if any, are unaffected by the identity of the project ultimately established. Any grievance about unutilised acquired land would have to be pursued in the manner and at the instance contemplated by the Act itself, and by persons entitled to raise it.
Negotiated Purchase Cannot Exclude R&R Entitlements
W.P. No.24626 of 2021 raised a distinct question: whether lands procured through negotiated agreements under G.O.Ms.No.45, G.O.Ms.No.123, and the Telangana Amendment Act 21 of 2017 were excluded from the R&R provisions of the Act of 2013.
The Court held they were not. The R&R provisions are addressed to the displacement of livelihood that results when land under cultivation is taken over for a project, not to the transaction by which land changes hands. A landless agricultural labourer loses his source of livelihood equally whether the landowner is divested compulsorily or parts with the land under a negotiated arrangement. To construe the statute otherwise would, the Court held, place the discharge of a statutory obligation at the option of the acquiring authority and defeat the purpose of the enactment. The Court noted that decisions of the Telangana High Court in W.A. No.677 of 2016 and W.A. No.803 of 2018 had already held that possession of lands, including those voluntarily surrendered, cannot be taken without compliance with the mandatory R&R provisions of the Act read with the Telangana Amendment Act.
The Court directed that the competent authority must examine the petitioners' claims without regard to the mode by which the lands came to be secured for the project. The precise extent of Second Schedule entitlements in respect of any particular parcel procured under G.O.Ms.No.45 or G.O.Ms.No.123, and the effect of Section 31A of the Telangana Amendment Act, were left to be determined on the basis of the terms of procurement and the material placed before the competent authority.
Disputed Facts Must Go to the Statutory Authority
On the fifth point, the Court held that whether the petitioners qualify as “affected families” under Section 3(c) of the Act, whether their livelihood was primarily dependent upon the acquired lands, and whether they are entitled to R&R benefits, are questions that require a survey and census, examination of revenue and other records, verification of the extent and continuity of dependence, and an opportunity to be heard. A writ court proceeding on affidavits is not equipped to substitute itself for the statutory machinery designated to carry out that exercise.
The Court added that the absence of any decision on the petitioners' representations for nearly two years was, by itself, indefensible. Statutory authorities are expected to deal with representations invoking statutory entitlements within a reasonable time and to communicate reasoned decisions.
Order
Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy disposed of both writ petitions on 28 July 2026 with the following directions:
The District Collector is directed to consider the representations already submitted by the petitioners and conduct an enquiry into their claim for R&R benefits in accordance with the Act of 2013, particularly Sections 3(c), 16 to 18 and 31, after affording an opportunity of hearing to all concerned, preferably within three months from receipt of a copy of the order.
If the petitioners have not yet submitted representations, they are permitted to do so within four weeks from receipt of the order, whereafter the District Collector shall complete the enquiry and pass a reasoned order within three months of receipt of such representations.
If, upon enquiry, the petitioners are found to be eligible affected families, consequential steps shall be taken to extend the R&R benefits admissible under the Act and the Rules. The Court expressly stated that it has expressed no opinion on the merits of the petitioners' claim, leaving all issues open for the District Collector. The challenge to the Section 19(1) declarations failed. No order as to costs was made. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, were closed.