2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 18430

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy, J
Vennamaneni Srinivas Rao – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
WRIT PETITION Nos. 18264, 18266, 18291, 18295, 18316, 18321, 18334, 18337 and 18512 of 2021

The government must demonstrate clear, specific public interest and compliance with proviso mandates to invoke section 10A exemptions. Without satisfying these jurisdictional facts, the exclusion of mandatory social impact assessments and procedural safeguards under the acquisition statute renders the acquisition notifications illegal and void.

Headnote:(A) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Sections 10A, 11(1), 19(7) - Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 300-A - Exemption from Chapters II and III - Burden of proof - Government, having invoked section 10A to exempt acquisition from social impact assessment and other safeguards, must demonstrate existence of public interest justifying such exclusion - Mere description of project as infrastructure or irrigation is insufficient to claim blanket exemption - Proviso to section 10A mandates ensuring minimum land requirement - Failure to satisfy these jurisdictional facts renders exemption notification illegal. (Paras 28, 30, 33, 38, 40)

(B) Land Acquisition - Successive notifications - Fresh acquisition proceedings for same project and land after earlier notification lapses by operation of law - Requirement of independent application of mind - Absent fresh material or demonstrated shift in circumstances, initiation of parallel proceedings without fresh consideration of statutory safeguards is impermissible. (Paras 44, 45, 47)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged the gazette notification granting exemption from the operation of Chapters II and III of the Act and the subsequent notification for the acquisition of land for a bund development project. Petitioners argued that the move was a colourable exercise of power intended to circumvent earlier judicial orders and that the respondents failed to conduct the mandatory social impact assessment without a valid exemption.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the State failed to justify the exclusion of statutory safeguards required under the Act. There was no evidence of a proper expert appraisal or adherence to the requirement of minimum land acquisition. The invocation of section 10A was made without establishing the underlying public interest required by law.

Issues: (i) Whether the government established a valid public interest for invoking section 10A to exempt the project from Chapters II and III of the Act; (ii) Whether the notification under section 11(1) can survive if the section 10A exemption is invalid; (iii) Whether the acquisition proceedings are vitiated by the pendency or history of similar prior notifications.

Ratio Decidendi: Social impact assessment and the safeguards in Chapters II and III are integral to the statutory scheme of acquisition. Exemption under section 10A is a limited exception that requires the authority to prove the existence of compelling public interest and compliance with the minimum land requirement proviso. Without demonstrating these facts, the exemption and the subsequent acquisition notifications are illegal and cannot stand.

Result: All writ petitions allowed; notifications set aside.