Exhaustion of statutory remedies is mandatory for compensation and rehabilitation disputes in land acquisition. The High Court will not exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction to resolve pecuniary claims or challenge highway alignments when efficacious statutory arbitration mechanisms are available under the governing infrastructure legislation.

ORDER:

The case of the petitioners, precisely as per the writ affidavit, is that they are small and marginal farmers dependent on their lands for livelihood, and they first became aware of the proposed acquisition only in March 2023, when a public award enquiry notice was placed in the Gram Panchayat office. Following this notice, survey teams began marking their lands, and despite approaching authorities for clarification, no copies of earlier notifications were furnished. As survey activities intensified during April and May 2023, allegedly damaging standing crops, some petitioners approached this Court in W.P. No. 13384 of 2023. At that stage, they were informed that mandatory environmental clearance had not been obtained. Taking this into account, the Court granted an interim stay on dispossession in May 2023. Subsequently, during the pendency of that case, the authorities secured environmental clearance in July 2023 and moved an application to vacate the stay. It was only through counter affidavits filed in that proceeding that the petitioners discovered the existence of multiple 3A and 3D notifications, allegedly published in newspapers such as “Mana Telangana” and “The Hindu,” which, according to the petitioners, had negligible circulation in their locality and were never displayed in the Gram Panchayat.

1.1. It is contended that the earlier writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the authorities not to interfere with the possession without initiating proper acquisition proceedings and paying compensation. The petitioners believed that fresh proceedings would be initiated in compliance with this direction, however, the authorities proceeded to pass awards under Section 3G(1) on 20.01.2024 and 14.03.2024 without issuing fresh notices or granting an opportunity for objections or personal hearing. Notices regarding these awards were served only in April 2024, and even then, copies of the award proceedings were not supplied. The petitioners state that copies were obtained with great difficulty only in October 2024, after which time was required to gather documents and seek legal advice before approaching the Court again. Throughout this period, the petitioners and others submitted representations raising concerns about the project and the acquisition process, but no responses were received. Meanwhile, authorities allegedly continued efforts to take possession and pressured landowners to accept compensation.

1.2. The petitioners assert that multiple 3A notifications dated 10.03.2021 and 21.04.2022 were issued for the same stretch without adequate land descriptions or owner details, violating Section 3A(2). He further alleges that publication in newspapers with little or no local circulation defeated the purpose of Section 3A(3), and that no Grama Sabha or local notification was conducted, undermining transparency and natural justice. The petitioners claim that 3D notifications dated 22.02.2022 and 07.10.2022 were issued without affording any opportunity to file objections, and that even after this Court’s earlier order, no fresh opportunity or hearing was provided.He argues that the authorities acted unfairly in publishing notices.While a Section 3G notice was displayed in the Gram Panchayat office, the earlier 3A notifications were not published locally. It is also stated that only one Section 3G(3