Hyderabad: Justice T. Vinod Kumar of Telangana High Court allowed a writ plea seeking additional compensation and rehabilitation benefits under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (LARR) Act, 2013, despite land acquisition proceedings originally initiated under the Land Acquisition Act of 1894. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by Kandukuri Prabhakara Chary, challenging the land acquisition process for his property situated in Ladnapur village, Ramagiri Mandal, Peddapalli district. Although acquisition notifications were issued in 2012 and an award was granted in 2015, the petitioner only received his compensation in 2018. The petitioner contended that as compensation was paid after the enactment of the 2013 Act, he was eligible for its enhanced benefits, including a rehabilitation and resettlement (R&R) package. The petitioner further argued that the authorities bypassed required procedures mandated in the state government’s GO dated December 19, 2014, which outlines fair compensation protocols for land acquisition cases. The petitioner also claimed that officials proceeded with taking possession of his land, going so far as to disconnect electricity to his property, without providing the necessary R&R entitlements. The judge after hearing the contentions raised by the petitioner questioned the petitioner’s reliance on the 2013 Act, given that the acquisition process had been conducted under the 1894 Act. The judge also expressed concerns about the delay, noting that the petitioner waited eight years since the award was issued to file his claim. The judge pointed out that petitioner accepted the compensation without protest at that time, raising doubts about his entitlement to benefits under the 2013 Act. The judge found that the claim of the petitioner for R&R benefits was unfounded and characterised him as an opportunistic litigant claiming benefits. The judge ruled that the petitioner was not eligible for benefits under the 2013 Act, emphasising that land acquisition proceedings, once initiated under the 1894 Act and finalised without protest, cannot be revisited under subsequent legislation.
