Telangana HC Directs State To Compensate Sriramsagar Project Oustee for Two-Decade Delay

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has ordered the state government to pay compensation equivalent to 20 years of crop income to an elderly woman farmer whose land the government had taken over for the Sriramsagar project under an exchange arrangement, but did not fulfil the promise of providing alternative land for two decades.

Stating that a promise made by the state cannot be allowed to be defeated by the apathy of its officials, Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti directed the government to not only compensate the petitioner, Danthakala Chinnakka of Kutapur in the undivided Karimnagar district, with Rs 10 lakh towards the lost agricultural income over 20 years, but also to immediately allot and hand over physical possession of alternate cultivable land, along with documentation. The compensation was calculated based on average income of Rs 50,000 per year on the two acres of land that the government had promised her.

The judge also directed the government to pay Rs 25,000 to the petitioner, a senior citizen, for legal expenses for making her approach the High Court as a result of the failure of the authorities to perform their duties.

Justice Anil Kumar was dealing with the petition filed in 2016 by Chinnakka alias Chinnamma, whose land got submerged under Sriramsagar project. Suitable alternative land was to be given to the land losers and Chinnakka was assigned 2.01 acres of agricultural land in various survey numbers of Bolapur-2 of Mallapur mandal, vide D-1 patta certificates in 2006.

While the authorities issued patta certificates, Chinnakka was not put in possession by demarcating the land, which is an important aspect in assigning a land or issuing a patta certificate.

Another person was found to be enjoying possession of the land parcel assigned to Chinnakka. Having lost both her home and livelihood in Kustapur and with no alternative land provided, Chinnakka was forced to make repeated representations before authorities without any result.

Coming down heavily on the government’s inaction, the judge termed the delay of nearly 20 years as “shocking to the conscience” and described the state’s conduct as self-serving and lacking credibility. The court emphasised providing that alternative land for displaced persons was not a mere formality but a constitutional and human right, protected under Article 300A.

Importantly, the court took into account the prolonged suffering, mental agony, pain and trauma endured by the petitioner. It observed that forcing a poor and illiterate villager to struggle for her rightful rehabilitation after losing land for a public project amounted to a complete abdication of state responsibility.

Rejecting the government’s explanation that the matter was pending due to internal correspondence under the rehabilitation and resettlement scheme, Justice Anil Kumar made it clear that such excuses could not justify denial of livelihood.

Exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, the High Court directed the authorities to hand over physical possession of the alternative land after proper demarcation and to complete all documentation, including issuance of a pattadar passbook and title deed, within four months. The compensation amount is to be paid within 16 weeks.