The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has issued a significant ruling emphasizing that the constitutional right to property under Article 300-A remains robust and cannot be disregarded, even when the government seeks to acquire only small parcels of land for public infrastructure projects. In a recent judgment delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Purushottam Kumar Chintalapudi, the court clarified that the deprivation of private property must be strictly in accordance with the procedure established by law, irrespective of whether the acquisition is intended for a larger public purpose.

The legal battle centered on land acquisition proceedings initiated for the E-3 Seed Access Road in the Andhra Pradesh Capital Region. Petitioners, including several landowners, challenged a series of notifications issued under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the Act). The appellants argued that the respondents, including the A P Capital Region Development Authority (APCRDA), had failed to adhere to mandatory statutory procedures, including proper administrative sanction, the conduct of mandatory surveys under Section 12 of the Act, and the implementation of essential rehabilitation and resettlement protocols.

In its decision, the bench noted that while the state has the power to acquire land for public purposes, the exercise of this power is subject to the rigorous checks mandated by law. Addressing the state's contention that the portion of land under dispute was minimal, the court observed: “No person can be deprived of the right to property save by authority of law. Deprivation of even a smaller portion of ones’ property has to be in accordance with law.” The court further stressed that compliance with established procedure is not merely a formality but a safeguard for individual constitutional rights.

Challenges to Procedural Compliance The appellants contended that the acquisition process was marred by significant irregularities. Central to their grievance was the claim that the respondents failed to address their preliminary objections with reasoned orders. Furthermore, the appellants highlighted a stark inconsistency regarding the rehabilitation of project-affected families. While a 2018 declaration had identified hundreds of families and cattle sheds as potentially impacted, the more recent notifications issued in 2026 reflected a “nil” impact assessment for displacement. This discrepancy, the appellants argued, pointed to an arbitrary exercise of power.

The state, represented by the Advocate General, defended the project as a critical infrastructure necessity for the development of the Capital City. It was submitted that a vast majority of the land required for the Seed Access Road had already been secured through a Land Pooling Scheme (LPS) and that the present proceedings were confined to completing the remaining gaps in the alignment. The state argued that the project was in the interest of the public at large and that the legal hurdles raised by the petitioners were merely attempts to stall progress.

Balancing Public Interest and Individual Rights The Division Bench reviewed the interim order passed by a learned Single Judge on July 3, 2026, which had declined to grant an immediate stay on the acquisition proceedings, citing that the legal issues raised required deeper examination through a counter-affidavit. The Division Bench upheld the necessity of a thorough review of the facts but took a firm stance on the need for procedural accountability.

The court explicitly stated that the urgency of public projects does not override the necessity of following the statutory framework. The court held that the submissions advanced regarding the failure to follow the mandatory procedures under the 2013 Act were substantive and could not be summarily dismissed at the interlocutory stage. Consequently, the High Court directed the respondents to file a comprehensive counter-affidavit to address these procedural allegations, noting that the judiciary must ensure that the state adheres strictly to the law when acting as an acquiring authority.

Directives for Expedited Resolution To resolve the ongoing impasse, the High Court issued specific directions to ensure the protection of the petitioners’ rights pending the final adjudication of the writ petitions. The court ordered that the respondents complete the filing of counter-affidavits within a fixed timeline. Once the pleadings are complete, the Single Judge is tasked with the final determination of the interim relief applications.

Until such a determination is made, the Court maintained the status quo regarding the land held by the appellants in Writ Appeal No. 849 of 2026. This interim protection serves as a temporary safeguard, ensuring that the petitioners are not dispossessed while their legal challenges are undergoing judicial scrutiny. Regarding the second appeal, Writ Appeal No. 850 of 2026, the court dismissed the matter as withdrawn for one petitioner and disposed of the others, while clarifying that the acquisition remains subject to the final outcome of the pending writ petitions.

The ruling serves as a reminder to state agencies that statutory compliance is non-negotiable in land acquisition matters. By ordering the prompt filing of responses and the expedited consideration of interim relief, the High Court has sought to prevent the state from bypassing the due process of law under the pretext of minor acquisition. The matter is now expected to proceed before the Single Judge, where the substantive arguments regarding the validity of the preliminary notifications and the Rehabilitation and Resettlement plan will be heard in full. The state’s ability to proceed with the remaining segments of the Seed Access Road project will ultimately depend on its compliance with the rigorous procedural requirements of the 2013 Act.