HC directs state to assess R&R benefits for Mallannasagar oustees | Hyderabad News

Hyderabad: The Telangana high court has ruled in favour of small and marginal farmers whose agricultural lands in Thoguta and Rampur villages of Siddipet district were acquired for the Komuravelli Mallannasagar Reservoir project under the Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Project.Delivering the verdict recently, Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy directed state authorities to issue a reasoned order within six months determining each petitioner’s eligibility for Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) benefits under the amended Land Acquisition Act.The court also clarified that any R&R benefits already extended for residential structures or houses must be adjusted to prevent duplicate compensation.The petitioners, including Tigulla Balamani, Asarla Pochavva, Lingolla Balanarsavva and Yekkala Balavva, challenged the state’s move to take possession of their lands without extending statutory R&R benefits under the 2013 Land Acquisition Act.They submitted that their fertile agricultural lands were acquired through negotiated settlements under GO No. 214 between Aug and Oct 2016. “The compensation covered only the land value, as the govt had deleted R&R costs from the consideration clause and officials had assured us separate R&R benefits before taking physical possession,” the petitioners claimed.They further argued that Telangana Act 21 of 2017, applied retrospectively from June 2, 2014, entitled voluntary land sellers to full R&R benefits.The state, however, contended that the lands were purchased voluntarily under executive power and not through compulsory acquisition. Farmers had executed registered sale deeds, accepted lump-sum payments and signed undertakings waiving future disputes or additional claims, it said.Rejecting the state’s arguments, the high court observed that GO No. 214 deliberately separated land compensation from R&R benefits, indicating that lump-sum payments were not all-inclusive. It held that undertakings cannot operate as estoppel or waiver against statutory entitlements, particularly as displaced farmers lacked equal bargaining power.The court also held that completion of the project or pendency of broader policy challenges before a division bench cannot extinguish the state’s obligation to provide R&R benefits. It issued the directions while disposing of a batch of petitions.