Telangana High Court Mandates Parallel Extension for Land Acquisition Objections
The Telangana High Court has unequivocally held that when authorities extend the timeline for land acquisition proceedings, the period available to affected landowners for filing objections must also be extended in parallel. Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar, presiding over the matter, observed that an extension of the acquisition process cannot be permitted to extinguish the landowners' statutory right to object to the acquisition.
The Court's ruling came while setting aside a final award concerning the acquisition of lands belonging to nine petitioners. These lands were earmarked for infrastructural development surrounding the Yadadri Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple. The High Court determined that the respondent authorities had failed to adequately consider both sets of objections submitted by the petitioners, thereby not adhering to the procedural mandate stipulated under Section 15 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act).
Justice Kumar articulated the principle, stating that since the acquisition proceedings' timeline was extended by the authorities, the period for filing objections must also run concurrently with this extended timeline. This parallel extension, the Court noted, is essential to enable petitioners to submit their objections during the prolonged period. The High Court underscored the State's obligation to conduct the acquisition process efficiently within the extended timelines, affirming the petitioners' right to an efficient and expeditious process in the land acquisition proceedings. Consequently, the Court concluded that both sets of objections filed by the petitioners, dated September 29, 2021, and November 15, 2022, ought to have been duly considered by the respondent authorities when passing the post-hearing orders.
Background to the Dispute
The dispute originated from lands situated in Yadagiripalli Village, where the petitioners asserted ownership over various parcels through registered sale deeds. Some of these lands had previously been subject to acquisition proceedings for development around the Yadagirigutta Temple. A fresh preliminary notification, issued under Section 11(1) of the RFCTLARR Act on August 3, 2021, and subsequently published in newspapers on August 10, 2021, initiated the acquisition process for the infrastructural development of the Yadadri Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple.
The petitioners lodged their initial set of objections on September 29, 2021, which the Court confirmed was within the statutorily prescribed 60-day period from the preliminary notification's publication. Subsequently, the District Collector extended the period for issuing the declaration under Section 19 by 12 months, effective from August 10, 2022. Following this extension, some of the petitioners filed a second set of objections on November 15, 2022.
Procedural Lapses and Court's Findings
A hearing under Section 15(2) of the RFCTLARR Act was conducted in March 2023, and final orders addressing the objections were issued on August 1, 2023. However, the authorities, in passing these orders, considered only the objections filed in November 2022, neglecting the first set submitted in September 2021. A declaration under Section 19(1) was thereafter issued and published on August 8, 2023. The period for passing the final award was also extended by 12 months, until August 7, 2025. The Land Acquisition Officer ultimately passed the final award on January 27, 2025.
The petitioners challenged these proceedings, contending that their objections had not been properly evaluated. The State, in its defence, argued that the statutory periods had been validly extended and that the final award was passed within the extended timeline. While the High Court acknowledged that the final award itself complied with the extended statutory timeline, it identified significant procedural flaws in how the petitioners' objections were handled. The Court specifically noted that the first objections, filed on September 29, 2021, were undeniably within the original statutory period, yet they were not considered when the post-hearing orders were passed in August 2023.
Furthermore, the High Court affirmed that the second set of objections, filed in November 2022, must also be treated as being within time. This was predicated on the fact that the authorities themselves had extended the overall acquisition timeline. The Court reiterated that objections submitted during such an extended period are deemed to be filed within the permissible timeframe, as the extended timeline must correspondingly extend the opportunities for petitioners to submit their objections. The Court emphasised that the extensions granted in the land acquisition proceedings should not, under any circumstances, extinguish the rights of the petitioners.
The Court also referenced the constitutional right to property under Article 300-A, identifying seven sub-rights, including the fundamental right to be heard, which forms a crucial component of procedural fairness in such matters.