Completed Acquisition Not Set Aside, but R&R Enquiry for Landless Livelihood-Dependents Must Proceed (Including Negotiated Purchases)
1. Introduction
This common order of the Telangana High Court (Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy, J.) in
Kanemoni Saradamma v. State of Telangana (decided on 28-07-2026) concerns land acquisition for the
Hyderabad Green Pharma City project. Two groups of petitioners (in W.P. Nos.14670 and 24626 of 2021)
claimed they were landless agricultural labourers and “project affected families” whose
livelihood depended on the acquired agricultural lands in Medipally and Kurmidda villages.
The core controversy was not about landowners’ compensation (which had been paid), but whether
the State could proceed with declaration/possession and project implementation without
identifying such livelihood-dependent persons and determining their
Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) entitlements under the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
(“Act of 2013”).
The State opposed the writ petitions primarily on maintainability/finality grounds: awards had been passed,
about Rs.1,097.82 crores paid to landowners, and possession taken and handed over to TGIIC. It also argued
that petitioners’ status raised disputed facts.
2. Summary of the Judgment
-
Locus/maintainability: Petitioners (as alleged landless livelihood-dependents) have locus to seek
consideration of R&R claims; writ is maintainable to that limited extent.
-
No setting aside of Section 19(1) declarations: Given awards, payment, vesting and transfer of possession,
the Court refused to annul completed acquisition at petitioners’ instance.
-
R&R obligation survives completion: Even though acquisition was not disturbed, the statutory duty to
identify affected families and determine R&R benefits is not extinguished.
-
Negotiated purchase not a bar: R&R claims cannot be rejected merely because some lands were procured
through negotiated purchase/voluntary mechanisms (G.O.Ms.No.45, G.O.Ms.No.123; Act 21 of 2017).
-
Relief granted: Matter remitted to the District Collector to inquire into petitioners’ eligibility and
pass reasoned orders (preferably within three months), with hearing and evidence.
3. Analysis
3.1 Precedents Cited
Cited by petitioners to stress that statutory acquisition safeguards—particularly the consideration of
objections/participatory requirements—must be meaningfully complied with. The High Court accepted the
broader principle that land acquisition statutes require strict adherence to mandated process; however, it
balanced that principle against the practical and equitable consequences of unsettling a completed acquisition.
Also relied on by petitioners for strict compliance with acquisition procedure and safeguards.
The High Court’s approach reflects a calibrated use of this principle: non-compliance with R&R steps was treated
as serious, but the remedy was moulded to ensure compliance through an enquiry and award mechanism rather than
demolition of finalised acquisition.
(c) Kallem Chandra Reddy v. Union of India and batch
Relied upon by the State to argue that once acquisition proceedings attain finality (declaration, award, compensation,
possession), writ relief to invalidate acquisition should not be granted. This precedent supported the Court’s refusal
to set aside the Section 19(1) declarations after awards and possession, especially where third-party landowners’ settled
positions would be disturbed.
Cited by the State for the proposition that large acquisitions are generally within local knowledge, undermining pleas of
ignorance and supporting a delay/laches objection. The Court used this reasoning to reinforce that petitioners could not
persuasively seek to unwind the acquisition belatedly, though it did not use it to defeat the narrower R&R-enquiry relief.
(e) W.A. No.677 of 2016 and W.A. No.803 of 2018
Cited by petitioners to contend that possession (even of voluntarily surrendered lands) cannot be taken without compliance
with R&R obligations. The Court did not order restoration of possession, but accepted the underlying normative point
relevant to Point (iv): R&R protections are not meant to be avoided merely by changing the mode of securing land
(compulsory acquisition vs negotiated purchase/voluntary surrender).
3.2 Legal Reasoning
(i) Standing of landless livelihood-dependents is statutory, not incidental
The Court anchored locus standi in the Act of 2013’s expanded definitions, especially Section 3(c)
(“affected family”) and related broadened concepts of “person interested” (Sections 3(x), 3(g), 3(q)).
This marks a clear judicial acknowledgement that, under the 2013 regime, acquisition law is not only about title-holders:
persons whose primary livelihood is affected may have enforceable statutory entitlements and therefore standing to
demand statutory performance.
(ii) R&R steps are mandatory, but remedy is moulded where acquisition is complete
The Court described Sections 16 to 18 (survey/census of affected families; draft R&R scheme; objections/public hearing)
and Section 31 (R&R award) as a mandatory statutory sequence. It also noted structural linkage in the Act:
the Section 19 declaration is to be published with a summary of the R&R scheme, and Section 38 prohibits taking possession
until compensation and R&R entitlements are provided.
Yet, despite finding that the petitioners’ grievance reflected a failure to undertake the statutory exercise in their regard,
the Court refused to set aside the Section 19(1) declarations because:
- Awards had been passed and compensation paid on a very large scale.
- Possession had been taken and land handed over to TGIIC.
- Setting aside would unsettle third-party landowners’ concluded rights and public expenditure.
- Petitioners approached after completion; delay weakened the case for destructive relief.
Crucially, the Court separated invalidating acquisition from enforcing surviving statutory R&R duties.
It held that refusal to set aside declarations does not mean the State’s R&R duty is extinguished. The
duty is owed to each affected family and can be discharged even post-acquisition through enquiry and award.
(iii) Mode of procurement cannot be used to defeat R&R
On Point (iv), the Court reasoned that R&R provisions respond to livelihood displacement, not to the
legal instrument by which land changes hands. Therefore, persons dependent on the land do not lose entitlement merely because
the landowner sold/surrendered land under G.O.Ms.No.45 or G.O.Ms.No.123 or arrangements under Act 21 of 2017. Otherwise, the State
could convert statutory duties into optional obligations by choosing a different procurement route—an interpretation the Court rejected.
(iv) Disputed facts to be decided by statutory authority, not on affidavits
The Court agreed with the State that eligibility (whether petitioners are genuinely landless agricultural labourers whose primary
livelihood depended on the acquired lands) is fact-intensive. MGNREGS job cards alone were not treated as conclusive. However, instead of
non-suiting petitioners, the Court directed the District Collector to conduct the statutory enquiry, receive evidence,
and pass a reasoned order—remedying the administrative inaction that triggered the litigation.
3.3 Impact
-
Post-acquisition enforceability of R&R: The decision strengthens the principle that R&R is not a
pre-acquisition formality that disappears once possession is taken; affected livelihood-dependents can still secure an enquiry and
benefits through statutory processes even after completion.
-
Remedial restraint with rights-preservation: Courts may decline to unwind large completed acquisitions (to protect
third-party finality and public projects) while still compelling statutory compliance through targeted directions.
-
Negotiated purchase cannot be an R&R escape hatch: Requiring bodies and the State must anticipate that livelihood-dependent
claims may arise even where land was procured by agreement, and plan R&R identification/execution accordingly.
-
Administrative accountability: The judgment signals that failure to decide representations claiming statutory entitlements
(here, over nearly two years) is judicially disfavoured and will be corrected via time-bound remand.
4. Complex Concepts Simplified
- “Affected family” (Section 3(c), Act of 2013)
-
Not limited to landowners. It can include landless persons—such as agricultural labourers, tenants, sharecroppers, artisans—if their
primary livelihood is affected because the project takes over the land they depended on.
- Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R)
-
A package of statutory support measures (see Second Schedule, and Sections 16–18, 31) meant to address livelihood loss and displacement
caused by acquisition—separate from “compensation” paid to title-holders for the land.
- Section 19(1) declaration
-
A formal declaration step in the acquisition process under the Act of 2013. Once followed by award, payment, and possession, courts are
generally reluctant to set it aside because it can unravel vested rights and completed transactions.
- “Moulding relief” under Article 226
-
Even if a legal breach is shown, a High Court may tailor the remedy to avoid disproportionate harm (for example, not cancelling a massive
completed acquisition) while still enforcing legal rights (ordering a statutory enquiry and award for R&R).
- Disputed questions of fact
-
Issues requiring evidence and factual verification (e.g., whether a person truly worked on specific acquired lands and primarily depended on them).
Writ courts typically direct statutory fact-finding rather than deciding such matters solely on affidavits.
5. Conclusion
The judgment crystallises a pragmatic but rights-protective rule: where land acquisition has been completed, the High Court may
refuse to set aside Section 19(1) declarations to preserve finality, third-party interests, and public projects; however,
the State’s statutory duty to identify affected livelihood-dependent families and determine R&R benefits survives and must be
discharged through a proper enquiry and reasoned order. Additionally, R&R cannot be avoided merely because land was obtained through
negotiated purchase/voluntary mechanisms rather than compulsory acquisition.