Telangana High Court Criticizes Revenue Officials Over Delayed Land Compensation
The Telangana High Court on Tuesday voiced strong concern regarding official indifference in disbursing compensation to a 74-year-old individual whose land was acquired fifteen years ago for the Mid Manair project located in Rajanna Sircilla district. The court also expressed displeasure over the failure of top revenue officers to appear before it in a contempt case related to this matter.
Court Takes Exception to Conduct of Senior Officials
During the proceedings, Justice NV Shravan Kumar took serious exception to the conduct of Navin Mittal, the principal secretary of the revenue (land acquisition) department, and Sandeep Kumar Jha, the district collector. Both officials failed to comply with a previous court order, prompting judicial scrutiny of their actions.
The case highlighted significant delays affecting the petitioner, a senior citizen whose lands have already been submerged due to the project. This submersion has effectively rendered the scope for filing objections moot, adding to the petitioner's grievances.
Government Proposal and Petitioner's Response
While the government suggested a "consent award" process that could potentially be completed within sixty days, the petitioner's counsel informed the court that the elderly claimant was not interested in participating in such a process. This disinterest stems from the long-standing delay and the current state of the property, which has been adversely affected over the years.
Court's Directive for Timely Resolution
Taking into account the petitioner's advanced age and the surrounding circumstances of the case, the court directed the respondents to bypass further negotiations. Instead, they were ordered to pass a ‘General Award’ within a strict eight-week timeline, emphasizing the need for expedited justice in this matter.
The court's intervention underscores the importance of timely compensation in land acquisition cases, particularly when elderly citizens are involved. This ruling may set a precedent for handling similar cases in the future, ensuring that bureaucratic delays do not undermine the rights of affected individuals.
