1. Compulsory acquisition of agricultural land for a public project — Non-allotment of alternate land under rehabilitation scheme. (Para 3 , 4 , 12 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Telangana) 333
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Anil Kumar Jukanti, J.
Smt. Danthala Chinnakka @ Chinamma, W/o. Late Rajamallu - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Telangana, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others - Respondents
Writ Petition No.15000 OF 2016
Decided On : 10-03-2026
Important Points
Failure of State authorities to provide actual physical possession of alternate land to a project-affected person, despite issuing a title deed, constitutes an unconstitutional violation of the right to property under Article 300A and a breach of the mandibular duty to ensure livelihood.
Subject
Constitutional Law - Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Article 300A - Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 - Right to property - Undue delay in allotting alternate land to project-affected persons whose lands were submerged for a public purpose project is not merely an administrative lapse but is unconstitutional - Allotment of land under a Rehabilitation and Resettlement scheme is mandatory to ensure citizens are not deprived of their livelihood (Paras 22, 23)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 - State's failure to provide physical possession of assigned land through demarcation, despite issuing a patta certificate, constitutes an abdication of official responsibility - Such inaction, causing a citizen to run from pillar to post for decades, justifies the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction to award compensation for loss of income and mental agony (Paras 19, 21, 25, 26)
Facts of the case:
A project-affected person whose agricultural land was submerged for a public purpose project was granted a patta for alternate agricultural land. Despite the issuance of the patta, the State authorities failed to demarcate the land or put the petitioner in physical possession, as the land was found to be occupied by third parties. Over twenty years, the petitioner made numerous representations to various authorities, but no alternate land was allotted, and no effective action was taken to resolve the encroachment.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the State authorities abdicated their duty by failing to provide physical possession of the assigned land. The issuance of a patta without ensuring possession is a failure of administrative responsibility. The Court noted that the petitioner, an illiterate villager, suffered significant mental agony and loss of livelihood due to the State's deliberate delay and inaction.
Issues:Whether the failure of State authorities to provide physical possession of alternate land to a project-affected person, despite the grant of a patta and repeated representations, violates the constitutional right to property and warrants compensation.
Ratio Decidendi:Property right is a constitutional right under Article 300A, a statutory right, and a human right. When the State acquires land or it is submerged for a public project, providing alternate land as per the rehabilitation scheme is a mandatory obligation. Long delays in providing actual possession of such land are unconstitutional. The State is liable to compensate the affected person for the loss of agricultural income and the trauma caused by administrative inaction.
Result:Writ Petition allowed. The State was directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for loss of income and Rs.25,000/- as legal costs. Furthermore, the authorities were directed to allot and demarcate suitable cultivable land and issue the pattadar passbook and title deed within four months.
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 - State's failure to provide physical possession of assigned land through demarcation, despite issuing a patta certificate, constitutes an abdication of official responsibility - Such inaction, causing a citizen to run from pillar to post for decades, justifies the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction to award compensation for loss of income and mental agony (Paras 19, 21, 25, 26)
Facts of the case:
A project-affected person whose agricultural land was submerged for a public purpose project was granted a patta for alternate agricultural land. Despite the issuance of the patta, the State authorities failed to demarcate the land or put the petitioner in physical possession, as the land was found to be occupied by third parties. Over twenty years, the petitioner made numerous representations to various authorities, but no alternate land was allotted, and no effective action was taken to resolve the encroachment.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the State authorities abdicated their duty by failing to provide physical possession of the assigned land. The issuance of a patta without ensuring possession is a failure of administrative responsibility. The Court noted that the petitioner, an illiterate villager, suffered significant mental agony and loss of livelihood due to the State's deliberate delay and inaction.
Issues:Whether the failure of State authorities to provide physical possession of alternate land to a project-affected person, despite the grant of a patta and repeated representations, violates the constitutional right to property and warrants compensation.
Ratio Decidendi:Property right is a constitutional right under Article 300A, a statutory right, and a human right. When the State acquires land or it is submerged for a public project, providing alternate land as per the rehabilitation scheme is a mandatory obligation. Long delays in providing actual possession of such land are unconstitutional. The State is liable to compensate the affected person for the loss of agricultural income and the trauma caused by administrative inaction.
Result:Writ Petition allowed. The State was directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for loss of income and Rs.25,000/- as legal costs. Furthermore, the authorities were directed to allot and demarcate suitable cultivable land and issue the pattadar passbook and title deed within four months.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ms. T. Rajalaxmi, learned counsel representing Mr. M. Srikanth, learned
For the Respondent: Mr. Ramesh Chander Goud, Govt. Pleader for Land Acquisition and Ms. Dara Haritha Kiran, Asst. Govt. Pleader
For the Petitioner: Ms. T. Rajalaxmi, learned counsel representing Mr. M. Srikanth, learned
For the Respondent: Mr. Ramesh Chander Goud, Govt. Pleader for Land Acquisition and Ms. Dara Haritha Kiran, Asst. Govt. Pleader
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner claims non-allotment despite assignment; respondents argue efforts were ongoing for alternate land. (Para 4 , 5 , 10 )
3. Twenty-year delay in providing alternate land despite patta issuance is unconstitutional and shocks the conscience of the court. (Para 20 , 21 , 24 , 25 )
4. State's duty to allot alternate land under rehabilitation scheme is mandatory; inordinate delay violates constitutional and human rights. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 )
5. Writ allowed; state directed to pay compensation and costs, and to allot and physically hand over alternate land. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 )
6. Is allotment of alternate land mandatory under a rehabilitation scheme for project-affected persons?
Yes, allotment is mandatory, not a bonus; failure to do so is an abdication of state responsibility and violates constitutional rights under Article 300A. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 )
7. Can a court award compensation for delay in allotting alternate land under a rehabilitation scheme?
Yes, a court can award compensation for loss of agricultural income and mental agony caused by an inordinate and unconstitutional delay. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 )
8. Is a patta holder entitled to physical possession of allocated land?
Yes, a patta holder is entitled to physical possession by demarcation; failure to provide possession constitutes abdication of duty by authorities. (Para 19 , 21 , 28 )
9. Does a citizen have a right to be rehabilitated after land is acquired for a public project?
Yes, the right to property under Article 300A and human rights under the Protection of Human Rights Act support the right to rehabilitation. (Para 22 , 23 )
10. Can the state's inaction in providing alternate land be challenged after a long delay?
Yes, a citizen can challenge such inaction; the court may exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to remedy the injustice of prolonged delay. (Para 21 , 25 , 26 )
ORDER :
Anil Kumar Jukanti, J.
This writ petition is filed with the following prayer:
“…to issue a Writ, Order or Direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the Respondents in not allotting the petitioner any alternate agricultural land in lieu of the agricultural land acquired from her due to submergence on account of Sriramsagar Project under the Rehabilitation Scheme even after lapse of several years since the acquisition of petitioner land for the purpose of the Project is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Rehabilitation scheme and pass …”
2. Heard T.Rajalaxmi, learned counsel representing Mr. M.Srikanth, learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. Ramesh Chander Goud, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and Ms. Dara Haritha Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, for respondents.
3. Petitioner states that she is a native of Kustapur Village in Mallapur Mandal of Karimnagar District, had a house and agricultural land, was dependant on the income derived from the land. Land got submerged under Sriramsagar Project. Suitable alternate land was to be given to the land losers under rehabilitation and resettlement scheme.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel that petitioner was assigned an extent of Ac.2.01 guntas of agricultural land, an extent of Ac.1.06 & Ac.0.05 guntas in Sy.No.22/2 and an extent of Ac.0.25 guntas and Ac.0.05 guntas in Sy.No.332 situated in Bolapur-II Village of Mallapur Mandal in Karimnagar District, vide D-I patta certificate No.D/484/2002, dated 02.05.2006 (Sriramsagar Project, Pochampad Project).
5. It is submitted that in spite of assigning, petitioner was not put in possession by demarcating the land. That, a request was made to the Special Deputy Collector to demarcate and put her in possession of the land assigned to her vide the patta.
6. It is submitted that as petitioner was not put into possession of the land assigned, representation dated 11.11.2009 (Ex.P2, Page No.12) was made. That the Special Deputy Collector addressed a letter dated 15.12.2009 to the Tahsildar (Ex.P3, Page No.14), instructing to conduct an enquiry and submit a report.
7. It is submitted that as there was no action, another representation was made on 29.10.2010 (Page No.15, Ex.P4) to Special Deputy Collector, seeking to put her in possession of land assigned under the Rehabilitation & Resettlement Scheme. That a further representation was made in the Revenue Sadassu on 24.12.2011, as nothing transpired, a legal notice was issued to the Special Deputy Collector, dated 21.05.2013 (Ex.P5), explaining her agony, that another person was enjoying the possession of land assigned to her. That further representations dated 27.08.2013 (Ex.P6), 01.01.2014 (Ex.P7), 20.01.2014 (Ex.P8), were made, but to no avail. It is also submitted that land allotted to petitioner was under illegal occupation/ encroachment by some other person(s) and had requested for allotment/assignment of alternate land.
8. It is submitted that Special Deputy Collector addressed a letter dated 14.02.2014 (Ex.P9) to Tahsildar, inviting the attention about the grievance of petitioner, sought a report after conducting an enquiry. It is further submitted that, Tahsildar sent a report on 08.07.2014 (Page No.30, Ex.P12). That pursuant to the report, a memo was issued to petitioner, dated 22.09.2014 (Ex.P13), informing that alternate land would be assigned/allotted, if available.
9. It is pointed out that in spite of the memo dated 22.09.2014, petitioner had to make further representations dated 16.03.2015 (Ex.P16) and 14.05.2015. That on 30.09.2015 (Ex.P18, Page No.41), the Special Deputy Collector addressed a letter to Assistant Director of Survey & Land Records (S & LR), for allotment of lands to displaced family under Sriramsagar Project and requested to assign/allot alternate land to petitioner. That in spite of letter dated 30.09.2015, alternate land was not allotted/assigned. It is further submitted that
