Telangana HC dismisses State appeal in Manikonda land case, slams bureaucratic delay

The Telangana High Court rejected the State government’s appeal in the 6.22-acre Manikonda land case, criticising the 488-day delay by the Ranga Reddy District Collector and directing the allotment of alternate land or fresh acquisition under 2013 land law

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court dismissed the State government’s appeal over Manikonda land concerning 6.22 acres (Ac. 6.22 guntas) of land acquired in 2001 for the Silicon Heights project at Cyber Park, Manikonda Jagir village, Ranga Reddy district.

The division bench comprising Justice Moushmi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar severely criticised District Collector of Ranga Reddy for approaching the court with a delay of 488 days. The bench upheld the single judge order which directed the government to either allot alternate land to the landowners or, if that was not feasible, to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

---

The dispute pertains to land, situated in Survey Nos. 203/2, 204, 205, and 206/A of Manikonda Jagir village, purchased by several individuals for residential purposes. The government issued a preliminary notification on June 8, 2001, simultaneously invoking urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. However, possession was taken only on July 2, 2002, and land acquisition award was passed on December 13, 2002.

The landowners contended that under Section 17(5) of the 1894 Act, possession must be taken within three months of invoking the urgency clause. If not, the provisions of Section 5-A, which guarantee a hearing and inquiry before acquisition, become applicable automatically. The landowners complained about the procedural lapses by the government and the loss they had suffered. They also pointed out the allotment of 50 acres of alternate land to TNGO Housing Society and complained no such consideration was given to them, prompting them to approach the High Court.

The Ranga Reddy Collector, representing the government, challenged the single judge order in an appeal with a delay of 488 days. On the delay, the government advocate cited reasons of heavy official responsibilities during the November 2023 Assembly elections, the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, and subsequent implementation of new welfare programmes under the incoming government.

Speaking for the bench Justice Moushmi Bhattacharya, in a stern rebuke to bureaucratic delay, disapproved the reasons cited. The bench observing that the appeal was far short of the time limit under Limitation Act, 1963 commented, “The stand taken by the appellant /District Collector who seeks condonation of delay cannot be borne out of privilege and a sense of entitlement.”

The bench stressed that the State cannot claim a “separate period of limitation” merely because it is a government entity. The judges noted that the Collector cannot use election as “all-purpose justification” when they have competent officers under them who are well versed with legal procedure.

In a pointed remark on administrative accountability, the bench said, “We are now in 2025. In the light of technological advancement, competence would essentially have to include technology-literate persons who have the wherewithal to remain alive and alert to court proceedings.”

Accordingly, the bench dismissed the State appeal.