Telangana govt not to procure lands for projects under GO 123: High Court

A division bench of the Hyderabad High Court on Thursday ordered that the state government shall, henceforth, not purchase lands under GO 123 dated July 30, 2015 for irrigation projects “as it violates the statutory rights of affected marginalised families, who included agriculture labourers, artisans and others.”

The bench made it clear that the order shall not preclude the government from acquiring lands under the Central Act 2013 (The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013).

On Thursday, the bench, in its interim order, noted that LA Act 2013 confers rights not only on those lands, and other immovable property, is to be acquired by the state, but also on families which do not own land, but one of whose members is an agricultural labourer, a tenant, an artisan or a share-cropper whose primary source of livelihood is adversely affected by the land acquisition.

The bench of Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan and Justice U Durga Prasad Rao was passing this interim order in a batch of petitions filed by the land owners and other affected persons challenging the constitutional validity of GO



123 issued by the state government to procure lands for Mallanna Sagar and other irrigation projects. 

The petitioners’ counsels contended that the contracts being made by the state under GO 123 are void under Section 23 of the Contract Act as they defeat the provisions of LA Act 2013 and that the government cannot be allowed to execute such void contracts. 

Meanwhile, Telangana advocate general K Ramkrishna Reddy contended that the state has the power to enter into a contract under the Indian Contract Act and purchase property exercising power under Article 298 of the Constitution. Article 298 is not only confined to trade or business, but can extend to any purpose including the state development through irrigation and infrastructural projects. 

Not satisfied with the submissions of the government, the bench held that as the 2013 Act confers certain rights and extends several benefits to the affected families, clause (b) of the proviso to Article 298 of the Constitution disables the state government from applying GO 123 to purchase lands for irrigation projects as it would deny the marginalised sections who are dependent on these lands.