Extension Of Land Acquisition Timeline Should Also Extend Landowners' Time To File Objections: Telangana High Court
The Telangana High Court has held that when authorities extend the timeline for land acquisition proceedings, the timeline available to landowners to file objections must also run parallel with the extended period.
The Court said that an extension of the acquisition proceedings cannot extinguish the landowners' right to object.
Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar made the observation while setting aside a final award, insofar as nine landowners were concerned, for acquisition of their lands for infrastructural development around the Yadadri Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple.
The Court found that the authorities had failed to consider both sets of objections filed by the petitioners and therefore did not follow the procedure under Section 15 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act).
The Court observed:
“It is to be noted that since the timeline for the acquisition proceedings were extended by the respondent authorities, the timeline to file objections must also run parallel with the extended timeline for the declaration to enable the petitioners to make objections during the extended timeline. It is the duty of the State to conduct the acquisition efficiently within the extended timelines as such the petitioners would have a right for efficient and expeditious process in the present land acquisition proceedings. Thus, this Court is of the view that both set of objections filed by the petitioners on 29.09.2021 and 15.11.2022 ought to have been considered by the Respondent authorities while passing the post-hearing orders.”
The dispute concerned lands at Yadagiripalli Village. The petitioners claimed ownership over different portions of the land through registered sale deeds. Some of the lands had earlier been included in acquisition proceedings initiated for development around the Yadagirigutta Temple.
A fresh preliminary notification under Section 11(1) of the RFCTLARR Act was issued on August 3, 2021 for infrastructural development of the Yadadri Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple. It was published in newspapers on August 10, 2021.
The petitioners filed their first set of objections on September 29, 2021. The Court noted that these objections were filed within the statutorily prescribed period of 60 days from the preliminary notification.
The District Collector subsequently extended the period for making the declaration under Section 19 by 12 months, with effect from August 10, 2022.
Some of the petitioners filed a second set of objections on November 15, 2022. A hearing under Section 15(2) was conducted in March 2023 and final orders on the objections were passed on August 1, 2023. However, while passing these orders, the authorities considered the objections of November 2022 but did not consider the first set filed 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 subsequently extended by 12 months, until August 7, 2025.
The Land Acquisition Officer ultimately passed the final award on January 27, 2025.
The petitioners challenged the proceedings arguing that their objections had not been properly considered. The State defended the proceedings arguing that the statutory periods had been validly extended and that the final award was passed within the extended timeline.
The High Court found that the final award itself complied with the extended statutory timeline. However, it found fault with the manner in which the petitioners' objections had been dealt with.
It noted that the first objections filed on September 29, 2021 were admittedly within the original statutory period. Yet, they were not considered when the authorities passed the post-hearing orders in August 2023.
The Court further held that the second set of objections filed in November 2022 also had to be treated as being within time because the authorities themselves had extended the acquisition timeline.
It reiterated:
“…the objections given during such extended period are deemed to be considered as objections filed within time period for the reason that the extended timeline must parallelly extend the timelines to enable the petitioners to submit their objections. As such, the extended timelines made in the present land acquisition proceedings should not extinguish the rights of the petitioners.”
The Court also identified seven sub-rights forming part of the constitutional right to property under Article 300-A. Particularly, it referred to the right to be heard and the right to an efficient and expeditious acquisition process.
It also found that the authorities had stated in the award proceedings that the petitioners had not submitted documents proving their title. However, the Court noted that the material before it included partition and sale deeds relied upon by the petitioners as proof of their title. These documents were required to be examined by the authorities.
At the same time, the Court declined to restart the entire acquisition process, given that the project had reached an advanced stage. Requiring the authorities to initiate the acquisition proceedings again from the start would cause significant loss to the public exchequer and affect the rights of land losers who had already received compensation.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the final award only insofar as the petitioners were concerned, finding that the procedure prescribed for hearing objections under Section 15 had not been followed.
The authorities were directed to recommence proceedings concerning the petitioners' lands from the Section 15(2) objection stage, and to consider both sets of objections and titular documents, give the petitioners an opportunity of hearing and thereafter pass an award.
The Court clarified that other land losers who had already received compensation and sought enhancement under Section 64 could pursue their remedies in accordance with law.
Case Title: Bogi Balraj & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Ors.
Case No.: W.P. No. 1895 of 2025
Appearance: Raja Sripathi Rao, Senior Counsel, representing Papaiah Peddakula, for the petitioners; Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for Respondent No. 1; Government Pleader for Revenue for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4.