'Officials Unable To Understand Simple Procedure': High Court Grants Relief To Villagers In Land Acquisition Proceedings For Hyderabad Pharma City

Allowing the plea by several villagers from Medipally near Ranga Reddy District, the Telangana High Court has set 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.

The bench of Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar came down heavily upon the Government, stating that this project has been on stand-by due to simple procedure not being followed by the State, almost since its inception.

“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.”

Court said it is at loss to understand why the concerned officials coming from IAS cadre are unable to understand the basic requirement of law and the procedure to be followed in the matter of land acquisition.

It noted that the mandatory requirements as contemplated under Section 15(2) and Sections 16 to 18 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 are not complied with by the State.

Section 15 relates to hearing of objections by any person interested in any land proposed to be acquired. Section 16 contemplates preparation of Draft Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme by the Administrator. Section 17 requires the Collector to review the draft Scheme and submit it to the Rehabilitation Commissioner with his suggestions. Section 18 then obligates the Commissioner to publicise the approved scheme.

In view of the non-compliance, Court said it has no option except to arrive at an irresistible conclusion that the declarations for rehabilitation under Section 19(1) of the Act and the consequential proceedings are vitiated and liable to be set aside.

Arguments

Petitions had contended that the State, by the virtue of Section 10A of the Act, exempted the land for acquisition from preliminary investigation for determining of social impact and public purpose, following which, the Joint Collector of Ranga Reddy District issued a preliminary notification under Section 11(1) of the Act.

This led the first 58 petitioners to approach the Court contending that although the notification was supposed to be published in the State gazette, the notification was only published in the district gazette, thereby making it non compliant with the established law. Further, that as per Section 15 they had the right to raise objections in relation to the notice issued under Section 11; however no hearing of objections was given to them.

Most importantly, the petitioners contended that no rehabilitation and resettlement scheme was introduced by the administrator. Neither was the scheme reviewed nor was it approved or made widely aware to the public as per Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Act.

The petitioners also contended that the preliminary notification issued automatically stands rescinded for not making publications regarding the resettlement scheme and allocating a rehabilitation site as per Section 19 of the Act with 12 months from the issuance of the notice.

Senior Counsel for the State and Special Government Pleader argued that the petitioners' claims are misconceived inasmuch as, in relation to the objections raised, notices were issued and enquiry was conducted. The State after considering all the objections placed on record passed appropriate orders, it was submitted.

It was also stated before the Court that Gram Sabha was conducted and all the villagers were informed as to why the acquisition was taking place. A notice under Section 16(5) was issued and a public hearing was conducted wherein the Joint Collector informed all the villagers that they would get an additional Rs. 5 lakh towards rehabilitation and resettlement in addition to the compensation.

Findings

The Bench at the outset clarified that the contention of the petitioners regarding 'Official Government' being the State government was not tenable. Justice Sudheer elucidated that under proviso to Section 3(e) of the Telangana State Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Rules, 2014, "the government appointed the district collector as the appropriate authority to initiate land acquisition proceedings for any extent of land to be acquired for a public purpose within the jurisdiction of the local district. Hence the district collector concern that is collector Ranga Reddy district is the appropriate government for all the purposes of the act in so far as the present acquisition is concerned."

The Bench further appreciated that all preliminary notifications were issued before August 2017 and upon corresponding the dates of proceedings on which extension was sought, the bench observed that the extension as per Section 19(7) of the Act was sought for before the expiry of 12 months from the initial date of issuance of preliminary notice and hence, time granted for publication of declaration as per Section 19(1) stood extended.

However, the bench held that 12 months could not be counted from the initial date of publication in the gazette, and only the date on which newspaper articles were published about the acquisition could be considered. "The right to raise objection is considered as valuable rather only right available to the interested person." Basing on this, two notifications that were issued after the completion of 12 months were held rescinded.

The Court then referred to several precedents holding that not publishing the proceeding granting extension of time on the official website is only a ministerial act and could take place at a later point in time.

While adjudicating upon the issue whether the notification was issued in compliance with Section 11 of the Act, the Court yet again appreciated the argument put forward by the Special Government Pleader that the purpose of publishing the preliminary notice is only to bring to the knowledge of the affected parties about the proposed acquisition and once the purpose is acquired non publication becomes redundant.

The Court observed, that although the petitioners had claimed that the State had not duly published the notification in widely circulated newspapers they did not plead ignorance of the notification or prejudice caused by non-publication.

The Bench further held that publication made only in the District Gazette was sufficient notification, as the issue arose only in the District, and only the general public who are affected by the acquisition, need to be sufficiently informed. Furthermore, the State had designated its responsibility to the District Collector vide Section 3(e).

However, the Court could not concede to the argument that the Government had duly followed the procedure for preparation of Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme as per Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Act.

“Thus, for want of compliance with the requirement of law as contemplated under Sections 16 to 18 of the Act, 2013 also, the further proceedings including the declaration made under Section 19(1) of the Act, 2013 and the Awards, dated 23.07.2020 are liable to be declared as illegal,” it held.

Kompoju Pandurangachari v. State Of Telangana

Kunreddy Mahukar Reddy v. State of Telangana

Orunganti Ramdevi v. State of Telangana

Buyyanapragada Parthasarathy v. State of Telangana

Dasari Veera Venkata Satyakondala Raya Choudhary v. State of Telangana

Advocate for all petitioners: Ch Ravi Kumar

Advocate for all Respondents: Harender Pershad, Special Government pleader.

Click Here To Read/Download Order