Telangana High Court quashes state’s land acquisition; strikes down arbitrary compensation fixed by district collector

The court passed the judgment in a land dispute case in Karkapatla village, Siddipet district, in which landowners Kummari Narasimhulu and others challenged the proceedings issued by the District Collector on October 13, 2023, which unilaterally fixed compensation for their land at a meagre Rs 2.5 lakh per acre, allegedly for use in a Bio Tech Park.

“In fact, the very object of the Act, 2013, is to ensure fair compensation, rehabilitation, and transparency, which stands defeated if the compensation is unilaterally fixed without passing an award,” the court stated.

The State argued that the land had been in its possession since 2008 and subsequently handed over to the Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd in 2016, and that the compensation offered was merely an ex gratia settlement in compliance with a previous court order.

The Division Bench affirmed that, except for the issuance of the impugned proceedings dated October 13, 2023, whereby compensation at the rate of Rs 2.5 lakh per acre was fixed for the land, no acquisition proceedings were initiated under the Act of 1894, or the Act of 2013.

The Bench observed that fixing a flat rate of Rs 2.5 lakh per acre was done “without reference to comparable sales, potentiality, or statutory multipliers as prescribed in the Act, 2013.”

The court underscored that the Siddipet district collector failed to issue any preliminary notification under Section 11 of the Act of 2013 as mandated. Further, it noted that the compensation award was not determined as mandated under Section 23 of the Act of 2013 but fixed unilaterally. The judgment added that “the absence of such notification demonstrates a clear failure to comply with statutory requirements.”

The court reiterated that even assignees of government land are entitled to full market value compensation and stated that “any deprivation of such fair compensation would amount to a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, and would also amount to unlawful deprivation of property in violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution.”

The appeal was thus dismissed, directing the appellants to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings for the land and pay compensation strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2013.