Telangana HC Nixes State Government’s Plea
Hyderabad: A division bench of the Telangana High Court comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar on Monday dismissed the objections filed by the state government in respect of 6.22 acres of land acquired in 2001 for the construction of Silicon Hills in Manikonda Jagir Cyber Park.
The government had acquired the land in 2001 under the urgency clause under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. However, he seized the year 2002 by not complying with the three-month period specified in the 1894 Law.
Following the landowners’ petition, the single judge of the Supreme Court on November 18, 2023 had directed the government to allocate alternative land to the ousted people within three months. If this is not possible, the government must initiate a new acquisition and complete it within three months in accordance with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
The land is located at Survey Nos 203/2, 204, 205 and 206/A in Silicon Heights, Manikonda Jagir, Rajendranagar mandal of Rangareddy district and has been acquired by several persons for house construction.
After the government allotted 50 acres of alternative land to TNGO, landowners who wanted to benefit from the same assistance appealed to the Supreme Court, following which the single judge issued the order.
Challenging the single judge orders, Rangareddy district collector filed an appeal requesting the court to condone the 488-day delay.
The division bench, comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Praveen Kumar, held that the disclosures provided by the state fell far short of the legal threshold under the Limitation Act, 1963, and emphasized that government officials could no longer invoke a default privilege to justify excessive procedural delays.
The state argued that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the district collector being exposed to responsibilities related to the November 2023 Assembly elections and later the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, as well as responsibilities related to the implementation of the new government’s flagship programs after December 2023.
Criticizing the government’s stance, the bench observed: “The attitude of the appellant (district collector) seeking condonation of delay cannot arise from privilege and sense of entitlement.” The court emphasized that the state could not request a “separate limitation period” just because the applicant was a government official. The judges noted that the collector had access to competent officials familiar with legal procedures and that election duties could not constitute an all-purpose justification for evading legal time limits.
The court underlined the importance of technological proficiency for government officials. The panel observed: “We are now in 2025. In the light of technological progress, competence should mainly include technologically literate people who have the means to survive and remain alert to court proceedings.”
There were procedural deficiencies in the land acquisition procedures notification published on 08.06.2001. In addition to giving advance notice, the government invoked the urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the 1894 Act on the same day. Ownership of the land in question was taken on 02.07.2002 and its tender was held on 13.12.2002.
The landowners objected, stating that Section 17(5) of the 1894 Act required the government to take possession of the property within three months of the urgency clause coming into force. If possession cannot be obtained within the stipulated time, Section 5-A of the 1894 Act, which mandates the government to give opportunity to raise objections and conduct investigation, will apply.
