Land Deals Cannot Be Used to Deny R&R Benefits to Oustees: Telangana HC

Hyderabad:The Telangana High Court has made it clear that landowners who voluntarily part with their properties through negotiated settlements for public projects through GO 123 cannot be denied rehabilitation and resettlement (R&R) benefits merely because they accepted compensation and executed registered sale deeds. The court held that compensation for the value of land and rehabilitation and resettlement were distinct entitlements and that the State cannot treat a negotiated settlement as a means to extinguish statutory R&R rights.

Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy allowed a batch of four writ petitions relating to land procured for the Komuravelli Mallannasagar reservoir project and directed the authorities to consider the petitioners' claims for R&R benefits independent of the compensation already paid to them. The court clarified that the actual eligibility of each petitioner had to be determined by the competent authority after an inquiry and an opportunity of hearing.

The petitions were filed by landowners from Thoguta and Rampur in Thoguta mandal, whose agricultural land was procured for the Mallannasagar reservoir under GO Ms No.123 dated July 30 2015. The land was purchased through negotiated settlements and registered conveyances between August and October 2016, with the landowners receiving the agreed compensation. Their grievance was that the authorities sought to deny them separate R&R benefits on the ground that they had voluntarily sold their land and accepted the negotiated consideration.

The state argued that the transactions were voluntary purchases rather than compulsory acquisitions under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It contended that the petitioners had willingly entered into the agreements, executed sale deeds and furnished undertakings stating that they would not seek additional compensation or benefits. The authorities consequently claimed that the landowners were estopped from seeking further monetary benefits.

However, the Justice Reddy considered that the subsequent amendment was made to GO Ms No. 123 through GO Ms No. 214 dated November 28, 2015. Under the original policy, the consideration payable to a landowner included, among other components, the equivalent costs required for rehabilitation and resettlement. However, GO Ms No. 214 specifically deleted the R&R component from the consideration payable under the negotiated settlement mechanism. Consequently, the judge held that the compensation paid to the petitioners after the amendment could not be treated as an all-inclusive payment incorporating R&R benefits.

The court also relied on the statutory changes introduced by Act 21 of 2017, which amended the 2013 legislation in its application to Telangana. The amendment, which received Presidential assent in May 2017, was given retrospective effect from June 2, 2014. Sections 30-A and 31-A were incorporated into the Act and the state subsequently framed the Telangana Land Acquisition (Consent Award, Voluntary Acquisition and Lump Sum Payment towards Rehabilitation and Resettlement) Rules, 2017.

Justice Reddy observed that the statutory framework and the rules framed under GO 120 dated June 30, 2017, themselves demonstrated the legislative and policy intent to extend R&R benefits even in cases involving consent-based or negotiated acquisition mechanisms. The judge said that the very title of the 2017 rules said that the premise that voluntary transfer of land for a public purpose did not, by itself, exclude R&R benefits.

The court held that statutory R&R benefits could not readily be waived, particularly because the provisions were part of beneficial legislation intended to protect displaced families. Referring to the Supreme Court's principles on waiver and public policy, the court observed that benefits founded on public interest cannot simply be contracted away.