Telangana High Court

Telangana High Court: Farmers' Request Against Highway Land Takeover Dismissed

Updated
Sep 25, 2025 4:49 PM
News Image

In a recent court decision, the request by six farmers challenging the land takeover for a national highway was rejected. The farmers argued that the announcement process was unfair and violated their rights. The court, however, supported the current rules and methods.

Farmers Challenge Land Takeover

The farmers, Nerella Kamalakar, Nerella Prabhakar Reddy, Nanneboina Varadha Raju, Konne Surendar, Madasi Sambaiah, and N Nagamani, own farming lands in Bodduchintalapalle and Nagaiahpalli Villages. These lands are set to be taken over for the NH-163G highway. The farmers claimed they were unaware of the takeover announcements until survey teams arrived in April 2022. They argued that publishing announcements in just two newspapers was not enough.

"We had no knowledge of these announcements until survey teams arrived," the farmers stated.

Farmers' Arguments on Announcement Process

The farmers' lawyer argued that the announcement process under Section 3A(3) of the National Highways Act was not enough. They felt it violated their rights under the Constitution, as small farmers with limited access to newspapers were not given a fair chance to object.

Government Defends the Process

The government, including the Union of India and the National Highway Authority of India, argued that the NH Act is designed for quick land takeover needed for national projects. They stated that the current publication methods are legal and enough.

"The NH Act ensures quick takeover vital for economic development," the government claimed.

Court's Analysis and Decision

The court, led by Chief Justice Apresh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin, examined if the sections in question were valid. They concluded that the NH Act's procedures are neither random nor unreasonable. The court emphasized that the law aims to balance landowners' rights with the need for building infrastructure.

Outcome of the Case

Ultimately, the court found no constitutional issues with the current laws and dismissed the request. The decision highlights the ongoing tension between development needs and individual rights.

"The request is without merit and is likely to be dismissed," the court concluded.

This case shows the challenges faced by landowners in the face of national development projects and the legal complexities involved in land takeover.