The Telangana High Court has held that the statutory obligation to identify affected families and determine their Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) entitlements does not end merely because land acquisition proceedings have been completed and possession has been taken.

The Court said that this obligation is owed individually to every affected family and can be discharged even after completion of the acquisition.

Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy made the observation while dealing with petitions filed by persons claiming to be landless agricultural labourers dependent on lands acquired for the Hyderabad Green Pharma City project. While refusing to set aside the acquisition declarations, the Court directed the District Collector to enquire into their claim for R&R benefits under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

The Court observed:

“It is, however, necessary to emphasise what the refusal to set aside the declarations does not mean. The obligation of the statutory authorities to identify affected families and to determine and extend Rehabilitation and Resettlement entitlements is not extinguished merely because the acquisition has been completed and possession has been taken. That obligation is owed to each affected family individually, and its discharge in respect of the petitioners does not depend upon the survival or otherwise of the declarations under Section 19(1). An enquiry into the entitlement of the petitioners, followed by an appropriate award under Section 31 in the event they are found eligible, is fully capable of being undertaken even now, and would afford them substantial and effective relief.”

The Court further held that landless agricultural labourers who claim dependence on acquired land are not strangers to the acquisition. The 2013 Act deliberately expanded protection beyond landowners to include agricultural labourers, tenants, sharecroppers and artisans whose primary source of livelihood is affected by acquisition.

The two writ petitions arose from acquisition proceedings initiated from 2016 for establishing the Hyderabad Green Pharma City in Medipally and Kurmidda villages in Yacharam Mandal. The State resorted both to compulsory acquisition under the 2013 Act and voluntary procurement under State Government Orders and the Telangana Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 2017.

The petitioners claimed that they were landless agricultural labourers and project-affected families whose livelihoods were entirely dependent on the agricultural lands proposed to be acquired. Apart from working on these lands, they said they depended on them for collecting biomass for household and cattle use and were beneficiaries under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS).

They claimed that they qualified as “affected families” under the 2013 Act and were therefore entitled to statutory R&R benefits.

The State opposed the petitions and said that the acquisition had already attained finality. Awards were passed during June and July 2021, approximately ₹1,097.82 crore was paid as compensation to landowners, and possession was taken and handed over to the Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TGIIC).

Observing that these questions required factual determination, the court said that whether the petitioners were in fact agricultural labourers dependent upon the acquired lands which cannot be decided under Article 226. However, the Court rejected the broader argument that they lacked standing merely because they did not own the acquired land.

It observed that under the 2013 Act:

“A landless agricultural labourer asserting dependence upon the acquired land is, therefore, not a stranger to the acquisition but a person upon whom the statute itself confers substantive entitlements.”

The Court added that whether the petitioners ultimately establish their entitlement was distinct from their right to have their claims considered. The disputed nature of their claims was “a reason for directing an enquiry into the claim, and not a reason for shutting out the petitioners at the threshold.”

Turning to the statutory scheme, the Court said Sections 16 to 18 impose a mandatory obligation on the R&R Administrator to conduct a survey and census of affected families, identify landowners as well as landless persons whose livelihood primarily depends on the acquired land, and prepare an R&R Scheme after inviting objections and conducting public hearings. The Collector must thereafter pass an R&R Award under Section 31.

The Court stressed that this exercise was not an “optional or purely departmental formality”. Section 38 also prohibits the Collector from taking possession until compensation and R&R entitlements have been provided for. Identification of affected families is therefore contemplated before the declaration and taking of possession, rather than being an exercise that can be postponed at the acquiring authority's convenience.

The Court found that no such exercise had been undertaken in relation to the petitioners despite their repeated representations. There was nothing on record to show that a survey or census identifying landless persons dependent on the acquired lands had been conducted or that the petitioners' claims had been examined and rejected after an enquiry.

However, the Court refused to set aside the Section 19 declarations. It noted that awards had already been passed, over ₹1,097 crore had been disbursed, possession had been taken and the lands had been transferred to TGIIC. Quashing the declarations would therefore unsettle a completed acquisition involving numerous landowners who were not before the Court.

The Court also noted that the petitioners had approached it only after the awards were passed and that their own pleadings showed that they knew about the acquisition by at least October 2020. Their belated challenge to the declarations therefore suffered from delay.

Instead, the Court said a writ court could mould the relief to address the actual grievance without causing “disproportionate public injury”. The petitioners' real grievance was that their claims had never been examined, which could be remedied by directing the competent authority to conduct the statutory enquiry without undoing the completed acquisition.

The Court also dealt with lands obtained through negotiated purchase. It held that an R&R claim cannot be rejected merely because some of the land comprising the project was procured through negotiated purchase rather than compulsory acquisition.

It observed that the R&R provisions address the loss of livelihood resulting from land being taken over for a project, rather than the mode by which title to that land changes hands.

“A landless agricultural labourer working upon a particular parcel of land loses his source of livelihood equally, whether the landowner is divested compulsorily or parts with the land under a negotiated arrangement.”

Accordingly, the Court directed the District Collector to treat the petitioners' earlier representations as claims invoking the statutory provisions of the 2013 Act. The Collector was directed to conduct an enquiry under the Act, give the petitioners and others an opportunity of hearing and permit them to produce documentary and oral evidence.

If they are found to be eligible affected families, the authorities must extend the R&R benefits admissible under the Act and Rules. The Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on whether the petitioners were actually eligible for the benefits.

Case Title: Kanemoni Saradamma & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Ors. with Sanda Vajramma & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Ors.

Case Nos.: W.P. Nos. 14670 and 24626 of 2021

Appearance: Ch. Ravi Kumar for the petitioners; Advocate General for the State; M. Srikanth Reddy, Standing Counsel for TGIIC.

Click Here To Read/Download Order