Extension Of Acquisition Timeline Must Parallelly Extend Landowners' Right To Object: Telangana High Court

Telangana High Court, in a significant ruling on land acquisition, has held that when authorities extend the timeline for acquisition proceedings, the period available to landowners to file objections must also run parallel with the extended timeline. Setting aside a final award passed against nine petitioners, the court directed a fresh consideration of their objections.

In a judgment delivered on August 3, 2026, Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar underscored that an extension of the acquisition timeline cannot extinguish the landowners’ right to be heard. The case involved lands at Yadagiripalli Village acquired for infrastructural development around the Yadadri Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple.

The Clock Starts Ticking: The 2021 Notification and Objections

The acquisition saga began with a preliminary notification under Section 11(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (RFCTLARR) Act, 2013, issued on August 3, 2021, and published in newspapers on August 10, 2021. The petitioners, who claimed ownership through registered sale deeds, filed their first set of objections on September 29, 2021—within the statutorily prescribed 60-day period.

However, the District Collector later extended the period for making the declaration under Section 19 by 12 months, effective from August 10, 2022. Taking advantage of this extension, some petitioners filed a second set of objections on November 15, 2022. A hearing under Section 15(2) was conducted in March 2023, and final orders on objections were passed on August 1, 2023. Yet, the authorities considered only the November 2022 objections, ignoring the earlier September 2021 filing.

A declaration under Section 19(1) was published on August 8, 2023, and the period for passing the final award was further extended by 12 months until August 7, 2025. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the final award on January 27, 2025.

A Second Chance: How Extensions Impact Objections

The petitioners argued that their objections had not been properly considered, particularly the first set, which had been filed within the original limitation. The State defended the proceedings, contending that all statutory timelines had been validly extended and that the final award complied with the law.

Justice Shravan Kumar accepted the petitioners’ grievance, finding that the authorities had not followed the procedure prescribed under Section 15. The court observed that the first objections, filed on September 29, 2021, were indisputably within time, yet were overlooked when the post-hearing orders were passed. As for the second set filed on November 15, 2022, the court reasoned that they must also be treated as being within time because the authorities had themselves extended the acquisition timeline.

The court stated:

“It is to be noted that since the timeline for the acquisition proceedings were extended by the respondent authorities, the timeline to file objections must also run parallel with the extended timeline for the declaration to enable the petitioners to make objections during the extended timeline.”

This principle ensures that landowners are not unfairly disadvantaged when the government unilaterally stretches the acquisition process. The court added that the extended timelines should not extinguish the rights of the petitioners—instead, the “extended timeline must parallelly extend the timelines to enable the petitioners to submit their objections.”

Seven Sub-Rights Under Article 300-A

The court also drew upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah (2024) 10 SCC 533, which identified seven sub-rights forming the constitutional right to property under Article 300-A of the Constitution. These include the right to notice, the right to be heard, the right to a reasoned decision, the duty to acquire only for public purpose, the right to fair compensation, the right to an efficient and expeditious process, and the right to conclusion.

Justice Shravan Kumar highlighted the sixth sub-right—the right to an efficient and expeditious process—and noted that the statutory framework under the RFCTLARR Act prescribes timelines precisely to prevent administrative delays from harming landowners.

The High Court’s Directive

While declining to restart the entire acquisition process (which had reached an advanced stage and involved substantial public money), the court set aside the final award only insofar as the nine petitioners were concerned. It found that the authorities had not complied with the procedure for hearing objections under Section 15.

The court directed the respondents to recommence the proceedings from the stage of hearing objections under Section 15(2), consider both sets of objections dated September 29, 2021 and November 15, 2022, along with the documents filed by the petitioners in support of their title and possession. The authorities were ordered to afford the petitioners an opportunity of hearing and pass a fresh award in accordance with law.

The court clarified that other land losers who had already received compensation and sought enhancement under Section 64 of the Act are free to pursue their remedies separately.

What Lies Ahead

The judgment reinforces the procedural safeguards in land acquisition laws and clarifies that extensions of timeline benefit both the State and the landowner. “If the government gets more time to complete the acquisition, the landowner must also get more time to raise objections,” the court effectively held.

The case has been disposed of with no order as to costs, but the directions ensure that the petitioners’ voices are finally heard in a process that had previously overlooked their timely objections.