Subsequent purchasers of land lacking notice after the preliminary acquisition notification cannot challenge acquisition proceedings due to lack of locus standi and the statutory prohibition on transactions.

ORDER :

Heard Sri Sista Venkata Kameswara Saketh, learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri E.Ramesh Chandra Goud, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for respondent No.3; and Sri Srikant Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (for short ‘TSIIC’) appearing for respondent No.4 and perused the record.

2. In the present writ petition, the petitioners assert ownership over various extents of land situated in Sy.Nos.115, 116 and 117 of Meerkhanpet Village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District claiming to have purchased it under registered sale deeds between the years 2020 and 2023. The petitioners in the present writ petition challenge the following:

(i) the Constitutional and Statutory validity of G.O.Ms.No.46 dated 20.07.2017 issued by the Industries and Commerce Department, Government of Telangana, whereby the project known as “Hyderabad Pharma City” was exempted from the operation of Chapters II and III of the RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT , 2013 (hereinafter “RFCTLARR Act, 2013” or “2013 Act”), as amended by the State;

(ii) the consequential land acquisition proceedings undertaken pursuant to the said G.O., culminating in the Award dated 30.04.2022 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur; and

(iii) the subsequent and independent acquisition proceedings initiated through Notification No. G2/3491/2024 dated 28.10.2024 for the formation of a six-lane road. The petitioners contend that the impugned executive action and the acquisition processes are unconstitutional, ultra vires the 2013 Act, and liable to be set aside.

3. The core grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents have undertaken a colourable exercise of power by initiating successive and overlapping acquisition proceedings under shifting and inconsistent public purposes, thereby infringing upon the petitioners’ rights, and such actions violate the principles of natural justice under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.

4. To appreciate the facts in their proper perspective, it is apposite to set out the chronology of events, which is tabulated hereunder:

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondents have indulged in a colourable exercise of statutory power by initiating three distinct and overlapping acquisition proceedings: i) first in the year 2012 under the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (for short ‘LA Act, 1894’) for an “Industrial Park”; ii) thereafter between 2017 and 2022 for the “Hyderabad Pharma City” under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013; and iii) again in 2024 for a “six-lane road”, this shifting nature of the public purpose across these proceedings demonstrates lack of bona fides, arbitrariness, and an abuse of the doctrine of Eminent Domain, thereby violating Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.

6. It is contended that the State’s resort to Section 10A(e) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 to exempt the Hyderabad Pharma City project from the mandatory requirements such as the Social Impact Assessment, public hearing, and consent, amounts to a substantive deprivation of procedural safeguards provided under the Act. The petitioners contend that the said G.O. is