Telangana high court turns heat on govt over 20-year delay in allotment of agricultural land

Telangana high court turns heat on govt over 20-year delay in allotment of agricultural land

Hyderabad : The Telangana high court has sharply questioned the state govt’s failure to provide agricultural land to a woman displaced by the Sri Ram Sagar Project (SRSP), observing that she has been waiting for nearly two decades despite being entitled to rehabilitation benefits.

The single judge had noted that while the govt had allotted a house site and provided employment to the petitioner, it had failed to hand over agricultural land promised under the rehabilitation and resettlement package for 20 years. Taking serious note of the prolonged delay, the single judge awarded Rs 10 lakh compensation towards the loss of agricultural income during the period and directed the authorities to identify suitable land, hand over possession, and issue a pattadar passbook and title deed. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy was hearing an appeal filed by the state govt against a March order of a single judge in favour of Danthakala Chinnakka Chinnamma, an SRSP oustee. Challenging these directions, the govt moved the division bench.

The govt’s counsel assured the court that the land allotment process would be completed within two weeks and urged the bench to set aside the Rs 10 lakh compensation awarded by the single judge. Because it was under the occupation of third parties, during the hearing, the govt contended that the land could not be allotted.

The counsel argued that the govt’s conduct “does not inspire confidence”, a contention that found resonance during the proceedings. Counsel for the petitioner opposed the govt’s stand, pointing out that even after the single judge’s order, no alternative land had been identified or allotted. However, the court appeared unconvinced by the explanation offered for the extraordinary delay. Expressing concern over the prolonged inaction and the lack of tangible progress despite repeated opportunities; the bench declined to grant any immediate relief on the compensation component.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *