Is This The Law Of The Land? - Supreme Court Questions Telangana HC Order Permitting Road Construction On Private Property Without Compensation

The Supreme Court on Monday (July 29) questioned a Telangana High Court order that allowed the construction of a road on a private property without prior payment of compensation, observing that it completely violates the law.

“Is this the law of the land?”, Justice Abhay Oka questioned.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was dealing with an SLP challenging Telangana HC's order in a writ petition by the appellants against an auction memo issued by the Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TSIIC) for the concerned property.

During the proceedings, Justice Oka expressed strong concerns stating, “How can you construct road without paying compensation? Writ petition is pending. We will say that interim relief granted by this court to continue till the High Court disposes of the petition. The court says that first construct the road and then give compensation.”

The Telangana HC had modified its interim order staying the auction process to allow the construction of the road, emphasizing the public importance of the project. The HC had reasoned that the public should not suffer and that the project was nearing completion. The HC stated that if the petitioners succeeded in the writ petition, they could claim compensation for the area used for the road.

The counsel appearing for TSIIC told the court that the construction of road stands completed. However, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the construction is still going on.

Justice Oka questioned the TSIIC's approach saying, “Which authority can say that we will construct road on private property without acquiring it? The court goes to this extent – 'it's a public project and therefore, first construct the road and then decide about compensation'. What is all this?”

Counsel for state and TSIIC emphasised that the respondents have not violated any court order. She said that many issues, including title of the property are pending before the High Court, and sought the opportunity to file a counter affidavit to place additional facts.

“What material you want to place on record? High Court order is of two paragraphs. This completely violates the existing law. Are you going to change law by filing a counter?”, Justice Oka asked. He added, “we will grant you time but now we will say about approach of the state. If state is taking such stand and insist that we will proceed with the construction without acquiring it.”

The Supreme Court in its interim order dated April 10, 2024 had directed that no further construction should be carried out based on the impugned order with the option to provide interim compensation to the petitioners if the respondents wished to apply for vacating the interim relief.

On Monday, the court suggested continuing this interim order till the writ petition is decided by the High Court. However, after the respondents resisted this suggestion, the Court decided to continue the interim order till the final disposal of the present appeal.

“As the writ petition filed by the petitioner is pending, we had suggested to the respondents that the interim order passed by this court can continues till the disposal of the writ petition before the high court. The impugned interim order permits the respondents to go ahead with construction on private property without taking recourse to the acquisition. However, respondents are not agreeable for even this reasonable suggestion made by the court. Interim order to continue till final disposal of the appeal”, the court stated in its order.

Consequently, the interim order dated April 10, 2024, will remain in effect until the final disposal of the appeal. The court granted four weeks to the respondents to file a counter affidavit.

Justice Oka remarked that if the state wants the court to go into the matter, it will go into the matter at the appropriate stage, and till then the interim order will continue. He said if the counsel takes instructions, the court is willing to recall this order and pass a reasonable order that the interim order continues till the High Court decides the matter.

Background –

The petitioners filed the writ petition in the HC challenging TSIIC's memo and notification related to the auction of land in Puppalrguda Village, Hyderabad. The petitioners, pre-partition tenants, claimed that their property was being auctioned unlawfully. They have sought directions that the respondents shall not disturb their peaceful possession of the property. They have claimed that despite the High Court staying the auction process, the State Government proceeded with the road construction on the disputed property.

Case no. – SLP (C) No. 10631/2024

Case Title – Vinod Singh and Ors. v. State of Telangana and Ors.