Public Purpose Of Rehabilitating Displaced Families Doesn't Justify Denying Landowners' Right To Oppose Acquisition: Telangana High Court
The Telangana High Court has set aside land acquisition used for creating a Resettlement Zone for families displaced by the Mid Manair Reservoir Project, holding that the existence of a public purpose is distinct from an urgency serious enough to justify depriving landowners of their statutory right to object to the acquisition. [2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 137]
The Court held that an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 after issuance of preliminary notification for acquisition is a statutory safeguard available to landowners. The power under Section 17(4) to dispense with this enquiry is exceptional and requires circumstances showing that even the short time required for such an enquiry cannot be afforded the court added.
For context, Section 4(1) provides for a preliminary notification expressing the Government's intention to acquire land for a public purpose. Section 5-A gives interested persons the right to object and be heard. Section 6 provides for a declaration that the land is required for a public purpose. Section 17 deals with urgent acquisitions: Section 17(1) permits possession before an award in cases of urgency, while Section 17(4) separately empowers the Government to dispense with the Section 5-A enquiry where the urgency provisions apply.
Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy observed:
“The existence of a public purpose is distinct from the existence of such urgency as would justify elimination of the statutory safeguard under Section 5-A. The Court must examine whether the material placed by the State establishes that the purpose of acquisition could not brook even the short period necessary for completing the statutory enquiry.
That principle assumes particular significance here, because the respondents have taken a categorical stand in their counter-affidavit that no urgency clause under Section 17 was invoked and that, therefore, Section 17(5) has no application...
The material does not disclose circumstances showing an urgency of such a nature that even the summary enquiry under Section 5-A could not have been held. The delay in proceeding thereafter is also inconsistent with the contention that the acquisition required immediate action so as to justify depriving the petitioners of the statutory safeguard.”
Referring to Supreme Court precedent, the Court said the existence of a public purpose is distinct from the existence of urgency sufficient to eliminate a Section 5-A enquiry. The power to dispense with the enquiry must therefore be exercised only in exceptional circumstances.
The Court also found a contradiction in the State's stand. Its counter-affidavit categorically stated that Section 17 had never been invoked. However, the Government's own Gazette notification expressly recorded invocation of Sections 17(1) and 17(2).
The Court observed:
“The Gazette notification dated 24.03.2008, containing the declaration dated 21.03.2008 under Section 6 of the Act of 1894, expressly records invocation of the powers under Section 17(1) and (2) and states that possession could be taken on the expiry of fifteen days from publication of the notice under Section 9(1).... The statement in the counter-affidavit that Section 17 was never invoked is, therefore, contrary to the contemporaneous statutory record.”
The Court clarified that invoking Sections 17(1) and 17(2) does not automatically dispense with the Section 5-A enquiry. A separate exercise of power under Section 17(4) is required.
The State produced no independent order or material showing that this power had been exercised. Its alternative contention that Section 5-A notices had actually been issued also did not establish compliance, as the petitioners disputed service of those notices.
“If the case of the respondents is that the enquiry under Section 5-A was in fact held, they were required to establish compliance with the statutory requirements. If their case is that the enquiry was dispensed with, they were required to establish the lawful exercise of the power under Section 17(4). Neither position has been established.”
The writ petition was filed by Kusa Lachi Reddy and others challenging acquisition of their lands for a Resettlement Zone under the Mid Manair Reservoir Project.
A preliminary notification under Section 4(1) was issued on January 16, 2008. The Section 6 declaration was subsequently issued on March 21, 2008.
The petitioners contended that they were deprived of their statutory right to object and participate in a Section 5-A enquiry. The State maintained that the lands were required for a genuine public purpose and claimed that Section 5-A notices had been issued, but the petitioners either refused to receive them or failed to submit objections.
The High Court noted that although the Section 6 declaration was issued in March 2008, the State's own case referred to an award enquiry only in August 2009. This delay was inconsistent with a claim of urgency sufficient to deny the Section 5-A safeguard.
The Court did not quash the preliminary notification under Section 4(1), since the public purpose itself had not been found non-existent. Instead, it set aside the Section 6 declaration insofar as it concerned the petitioners' lands.
The Court also declined to hold that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act. Relying on Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, it held that the period covered by an interim status quo order obtained by the petitioners had to be excluded while calculating the five-year period. It clarified that this did not cure the independent defects in the acquisition under the 1894 Act.
If the lands are still required for the stated public purpose, the authorities were permitted to proceed afresh under the presently applicable statutory regime.
Case Title: Kusa Lachi Reddy & Ors. v. District Collector, Karimnagar District & Anr.
Case No.: W.P. No. 26095 of 2009
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 137
Appearance: V.V. Ramana Rao for the petitioners; Katta Radha Reddy, Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, for the respondents.