State Can't Invoke 3-Month Deadline After Wrongfully Rejecting Landowners' Timely Pleas For Enhanced Compensation: Telangana High Court

Dismissing the State's appeal, a Division Bench of Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy observed:

“Having illegally refused to refer the claims of the writ petitioners under Section 18 of the Act, the State now says that the writ petitioners ought to have travelled the route of Section 28-A, and are out of time under that provision. No party, and least of all the State, can be permitted to take advantage of its own wrong ... The limitation prescribed by Section 28-A(1) was never intended to protect an authority which has wrongfully shut out a claimant from the remedy under Section 18 of the Act.”

The case concerned 55 people whose homes were acquired for submergence under the P.P. Rao Project. Within six weeks of the 2003 compensation award, they applied to have their compensation determined by a civil court under Section 18. The Land Acquisition Officer rejected their applications because they had accepted payment without expressly recording a protest.

Ten other awardees covered by the same award obtained enhanced compensation through a court reference. After that decision became final, the 55 landowners sought re-determination, but their applications were rejected as being beyond Section 28-A's three-month period. A Single Judge directed the State to re-determine their compensation, prompting the appeal.

Special Government Pleader P. Sridhar Reddy argued for the State that the later applications were time-barred and that the 2003 rejection had never been specifically challenged. G. Chandan Raaj, for the landowners, submitted that their claims began with their timely Section 18 applications, which the authorities had unlawfully refused to refer.

The Division Bench held that a timely written request for a court reference itself showed that the landowners had not accepted the compensation award. The law did not require their protest to be entered in a particular form, it said. Treating representations as sufficient for ten awardees while rejecting the others' written applications was also arbitrary.

The Court found that the landowners' entitlement arose under Section 18 in 2003, independently of their later attempt to invoke Section 28-A. Their use of that provision could not change the true character of their claim.

The Bench also rejected the State's objection to the wording of the writ petition. The illegality of the 2003 rejection had been pleaded and contested, even though the petition did not separately ask for that rejection to be quashed. It found no reason to deny relief on account of delay, noting the landowners' timely initial applications and subsequent efforts to obtain compensation.

The Court dismissed the appeal and directed re-determination at the rates awarded to the ten other claimants, together with applicable additional amount, solatium and interest, after deducting sums already paid. Payment must be completed within three months. It clarified that its ruling does not relax the mandatory deadline for ordinary Section 28-A applications.

Case Title: State of Telangana & Ors. v. Bandari Rajaiah & Ors.

Case No.: Writ Appeal No. 6 of 2025

Appearance: P. Sridhar Reddy, Special Government Pleader, for the appellants; G. Chandan Raaj for the respondents.