Hyderabad: The Hyderabad High Court on Friday advised the Telangana state government to formulate a policy in accordance with Section 108 of the Land Acquisition Act 2013 and place it before the court.
This provision provides state governments with an option to offer a better compensation package and include in it other groups affected by the sale of land. The case has been taken up on the request of TS advocate general K. Ramakrishna Reddy.
High Court: What’s fate of farm labour?
A division bench comprising acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan and Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao was hearing an appeal by the state government as a lunch motion challenging an order passed by a single judge quashing GO Ms No 123 which allowed state government wings to purchase land from farmers.
While making it clear that the court was not suspecting the government, Justice Ranganathan said, “We do understand the urgency of the state, but it should also be ensured that the rights of the affected persons are protected.”
The bench said that Section 108 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 envisaged an option for the states to enact a law to enhance or add to the entitlements enumerated under the 2013 Act which confers higher compensation than payable under the Act or make provisions for rehabilitation and resettlement which was more beneficial than provided under the Act.
Advancing his arguments, Mr Ramakri-shna Reddy, Advocate-General of Telangana, submitted that the government was purchasing land only from willing owners and there was no coercion on farmers to sell their lands. He said that the lands were being purchased in the open market paying higher consideration and whenever land owners were not willing, under inevit-able circumstances, the state was following due course of law to acquire those lands.
While citing certain portions of the single judge order, the AG reminded that in an earlier occasion the High Court had refused to intervene in GO 123.
The acting CJ pointed out that the single judge had taken two grounds for quashing the GO. “You have deleted the rehabilitation and resettlement of labour and artisans, and the enhanced compensation is also missing, which goes against the provisions of the 2013 Act.”
The bench added: “It may be good for the government and also the land owners, with the government buying lands at higher prices, but what would be the fate of the agricultural labourers who are depending on those lands for their livelihood? As per Section 108 it is the responsibility of the government to make a policy. What about such a policy?”
“Ours is a welfare state and it will take care of the poor labour, we are not pawn brokers. Our government is an elected one and we are accountable and answerable to the people for another three years,” the AG said. He added that the government was going to provide rehabilitation to each and every displaced or affected person in this issue and urged the court to permit the government to go ahead with registrations till it came up with a proposal.
Mr K.S. Murthy, counsel for the petitioner, while opposing the contentions of the AG, said the petitioners were poor and landless artisans, peasants and agricultural labourers and they were not seeking charity, but their right. The bench adjourned the case to Monday.
