Telangana High Court Rejects State’s Appeal Over Land Acquisition

A division bench of the Telangana High Court has dismissed appeals filed by the state government regarding the acquisition of 6.22 acres of land in Manikonda Jagir, Hyderabad. The land was originally acquired in 2001 for the construction of Silicon Heights at Cyber Park. The court’s ruling emphasizes procedural adherence and the importance of timely legal action in land acquisition matters.

The government acquired the land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, utilizing the urgency clause. However, it failed to comply with the mandated three-month deadline, taking possession of the land only in 2002. This prompted landowners to file a petition, leading to a directive from a single judge on November 18, 2023, ordering the government to provide alternative land or initiate new acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

The contested land, located in Survey No.s 203/2, 204, 205, and 206/A, was purchased by multiple individuals for residential development. Following the government’s allocation of 50 acres of alternative land to TNGO, other landowners sought similar relief, resulting in the High Court’s intervention.

The appeal against the single judge’s orders was filed by the Rangareddy district collector, who requested the court to excuse a delay of 488 days in filing the appeal. In its ruling, the division bench, comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar, criticized the state for failing to meet the legal standards set by the Limitation Act, 1963. The judges pointed out that government officials cannot rely on assumed privileges to justify significant procedural delays.

The state argued that the delay was due to the district collector’s responsibilities concerning the upcoming November 2023 Assembly elections and the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, as well as the implementation of new government programs post-December 2023. The court, however, rejected this justification, stating, “The stand taken by the appellant (district collector) who seeks condonation of delay cannot be born out of privilege and a sense of entitlement.” The judges emphasized that the government cannot claim a “separate period of limitation” simply because the applicant is a government employee.

The bench acknowledged that competent officers familiar with legal protocols were available to the collector, and election duties could not excuse the failure to adhere to statutory time frames. They also highlighted the growing necessity for government officials to leverage modern technology in their operations. “We are now in 2025. In light of technological advancement, competence would essentially have to include technology-literate persons who have the wherewithal to remain alive and alert to court proceedings,” the bench stated.

Additionally, the court pointed out procedural deficiencies in the land acquisition process initiated on June 8, 2001. While the government issued a preliminary notification and invoked the urgency clause on the same day, possession was only taken on July 2, 2002, with an award passed on December 13, 2002. The landowners contended that the government was obligated to take possession within three months after invoking the urgency clause, as stipulated in Section 17(5) of the 1894 Act. The court noted that failure to comply with this timeline required the government to allow for objections and conduct an inquiry in accordance with Section 5-A.

This ruling serves as a crucial reminder of the need for government adherence to legal procedures in land acquisition cases, ensuring that the rights of landowners are protected and that accountability is maintained within public administration.