The Telangana High Court has issued a significant directive to the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and other relevant authorities, instructing them to first verify whether a standing crop exists on land being acquired for a proposed National Highway (NH) project in Tekurutla and Chityal mandals of Jayashankar Bhupalpally district. This order came after landowners expressed concerns that their paddy crop was on the verge of being destroyed due to the project.
Court's Interim Order
A division bench comprising Justices T. Madhavi Devi and G.M. Mohiuddin, holding the vacation bench, stated, "If there is a standing crop, authorities are directed not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners and permit them to harvest their crop." The court subsequently adjourned the matter to June 8 for further hearing.
Background of the Case
The bench issued these directions while hearing an appeal filed by five farmers challenging a single judge order. The single judge had relegated the petitioners to avail the statutory remedy under the National Highways Act and, if necessary, under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The appellants argued that even as they were pursuing statutory remedies, authorities were preparing to acquire their land parcels without finalizing proper compensation. They emphasized that the paddy was in a ripe stage, ready for harvest within days, while construction work was progressing rapidly on adjacent land. The petitioners submitted photographs showing paddy crop on the land being acquired for the NH project and requested protection at least until the completion of the High Court's summer vacation. They further claimed that authorities had already entered portions of their land.
Court's Response
After hearing the appellants and examining the evidence, the bench issued notices to all respondent parties, including NHAI, and passed the interim directions. The court's order ensures that farmers can harvest their standing crop before any acquisition proceeds.
This ruling underscores the judiciary's commitment to protecting farmers' livelihoods during infrastructure development. The case highlights the need for authorities to balance developmental projects with the rights of landowners, especially when standing crops are at stake.
