NHAI Projects: Land Losers Entitled to R&R Benefits Alongside Compensation, Rules HC

acquisition officer cum competent authority was obligated to consider and
extend rehabilitation and resettlement (R&R) benefits to displaced persons
or property losers affected by a National Highway project, apart from the
compensation given to them under the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
The bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin
was dealing with an appeal filed by the project-affected persons of various
villages of Elkathurthy mandal of Hanamkonda, whose properties were acquired
for the widening of the Karimnagar-Warangal section of National Highway-563.
Compensation was paid for the land acquired, but the authorities refused to
provide R&R benefits.
Earlier, the district collector had communicated to the project-affected
persons that the project director of the NHAI had clarified that the R&R
provisions of Act 30 of 2013 were not applicable to them. The affected
families contended that refusing them R&R benefits was contrary to law and
approached the High Court. A single judge had directed them to seek remedy
under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956.
Challenging the single judge orders, some of the affected persons approached
the division bench in appeal, challenging how the single judge relegated
them to the authority of NHAI whereas land acquisition proceedings were
initiated by the revenue divisional officer (RDO)-cum-land acquisition
officer.
During the hearing, additional solicitor-general Narasimha Sharma
acknowledged that the denial of R&R benefits was not legally sustainable,
citing a Central government order dated August 28, 2015, which extended the
provisions of the 2013 Act to acquisitions made under the National Highways
Act. The Union ministry of highways guidelines issued in 2017 further
clarified that such benefits are applicable from January 1, 2015. He
submitted that the clarification of the project director, NHAI, PIU,
Warangal, would not stand the test of legal scrutiny.
Agreeing with these submissions, the division bench held that land losers
under the National Highways Act were indeed entitled to compensation as well
as R&R benefits under the 2013 Act. The court set aside the judgment of the
single judge and granted liberty to the appellants to approach the competent
authority with their claims. It directed the RDO -cum-land acquisition
officer to examine and decide the matter within eight weeks. The court also
permitted the appellants to seek temporary shelter, given their
displacement.

Telangana High Court Sentences RDO to One-Month Jail for ‘Wilful Disobedience’ in Land Dispute

The Telangana High Court has sentenced Rajendranagar revenue divisional
officer (RDO) Koppula Venkat Reddy to one month’s simple imprisonment and a
fine of `2,000 for wilful disobedience of its orders in respect of a 74.97
acre land parcel in Survey No.s 174 to 176, 178, 182, 183 and 154 situated
at Peddashapur, Shamshabad mandal of Rangareddy district.
The court suspended the sentence of imprisonment for two weeks after which
the RDO would have to surrender before the Registrar (Judicial-I), High
Court, to undergo imprisonment.
The High Court on February 18, 2025, had directed the Rajendranagar
RDO-cum-competent authority of the Land Reform Tribunal (LRT), to pass
appropriate orders within six weeks in land ceiling cases. The orders were
issued in a petition filed by Mohd Yousufuddin Khan who contended that it
was patta land.
The dispute over classification of the land erupted after the RDO-LRT had
passed orders in 1977 classifying it as ceiling land. The matter went to the
civil court and was remanded to the RDO-LRT for re-consideration and passing
of fresh orders.
The RDO heard the matter and reserved orders on November 2, 2024. Following
inordinate delay by the authority, Yousufuddin Khan approached the High
Court via a writ petition, which was heard by the single judge bench headed
by Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy. The court, without expressing any opinion on
the right and entitlement of Yousufuddin Khan over the subject properties,
directed the RDO-cum-LRT to pass appropriate orders within six weeks.
As the official did not comply with this, Yousfuddin Khan filed the contempt
case which was heard by Justice Bhaskar Reddy. Even after issuance of
contempt notices, the RDO did not file a counter or a reply. The court
issued notice in Form-I for his appearance before the court on February 27.
The RDO then filed a counter affidavit on February 26, enclosing the copy of
order dated February 24, 2026. The court found that the orders were passed
without assigning valid reasons and had arrived at conclusions which are not
only inconsistent but also contrary to the record and self-contradictory.
The court said that when a matter was remanded to an authority, the
authority was expected to adjudicate the matter afresh within the parameters
of the remand order. The court mentioned that consideration meant it should
be in true spirit applying mind to the facts of the case. Simple rejection
without application of mind did not amount to compliance of the order.
“Mere formal or mechanical compliance, without proper consideration, would
not amount to compliance in the eye of law,” the court observed. The court
noted that the RDO had adopted an approach which defeated the very purpose
of remand.

“Unknown to Law”: High Court Slams Panjagutta Police for Breathalyser Test Inside Station

Taking strong exception to the conduct of the Panjagutta police, the
Telangana High Court on Friday questioned the legality of their
administering a breathalyser test inside the police station premises,
terming the action “unknown to law”. The court observed that it was nothing
but overreaching of their authority by the police.
The court directed the police officials concerned to explain how they could
use such a test inside the police station and which provision of the law
allowed them to do so.
Justice E.V. Venugopal was hearing a writ petition filed by advocate Subba
Rao, who alleged harassment and humiliation at the Panjagutta police
station. The advocate and popular folk singer Mangli had filed complaints
against each other and FIRs were registered in the Panjagutta police
station.
Petitioner’s counsel, senior advocate V. Raghunath, said Subba Rao had
visited the police station to inquire about the status of a case concerning
his clients. During the visit, the station house officer (SHO) allegedly
subjected Subba Rao to a breathalyser test. The test reportedly showed 27
per cent of blood alcohol content, which was permissible for driving.
Despite this, he was allegedly treated in a humiliating and defamatory
manner.
The petitioner alleged that unidentified persons had been following him,
causing apprehension and distress. Opposing the claims, Mahesh Raje,
government pleader for the home department, denied the allegations and
sought time to file a counter affidavit and obtain instructions.
After hearing both sides and perusing video material submitted by the
petitioner, Justice Venugopal expressed serious concern over the incident
and observed that conducting a breathalyser test within a police station
raised significant legal questions and could not be justified under existing
law.

The court directed the police to preserve all CCTV footage from the
Panjagutta police station covering the relevant time period, including
recordings from all angles. The court restrained the police from interfering
with the petitioner’s personal liberty and fundamental rights except in
accordance with due process of law, warning that any deviation would be
viewed seriously.