The Andhra Pradesh High Court has declined to set aside a batch of land acquisition awards passed for lands acquired in Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli district, for the Visakhapatnam-Chennai Industrial Corridor (VCIC) project. However, the Court protected the landowners’ right to seek enhanced compensation by permitting them to approach the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (LARR) Authority under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Justice B. Krishna Mohan was dealing with a batch of writ petitions challenging twelve acquisition awards passed in 2017 and 2018 relating to approximately 417.50 acres of land acquired for the expansion of the Integrated Special Economic Zone forming part of the VCIC project. The petitioners sought quashing of the awards, alleging that the acquisition proceedings violated the provisions of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act.
The landowners contended that mandatory notices under Sections 21 and 22 of the 2013 Act had not been served before passing the awards and that they came to know of the awards only in 2025 through applications filed under the Right to Information Act. They further argued that the authorities mechanically adopted a market value of ₹5 lakh per acre, incorrectly applied a multiplier factor of 1.25 instead of 2, failed to determine compensation based on prevailing market rates, and denied them rehabilitation and resettlement benefits despite their livelihood depending entirely on the acquired agricultural lands. They also claimed the actual market value exceeded ₹50 lakh per acre.
The State opposed the petitions, arguing that they suffered from gross delay and laches as the awards had been passed in 2017-18 and the present petitions were instituted only in 2025. It was submitted that statutory notices had been issued, award enquiries were conducted, and compensation was calculated in accordance with the 2013 Act. The State further contended that the Government had subsequently approved ₹20 lakh per acre on November 13, 2017, for landowners willing to enter into consent awards, but the petitioners refused to part with their lands voluntarily. It also maintained that compensation had been proposed to be deposited before the LARR Authority after the petitioners did not cooperate in the proceedings.
After considering the rival submissions, the High Court declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction to interfere with the acquisition awards. The Court observed that the grievance of the petitioners essentially related to the adequacy of compensation and held that the Land Acquisition Act itself provides an effective statutory remedy for enhancement of compensation before the LARR Authority.
Accordingly, the Court granted liberty to the petitioners to invoke Section 64 of the LARR Act, 2013. It directed that if such applications are filed, the LARR Authority shall consider their claims on merits, notwithstanding the delay, after following the due procedure prescribed under the Act. The Court further clarified that the respondent authorities are at liberty to take possession of the acquired lands by following the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules.
Extending the same relief to all connected petitions arising out of the same acquisition process, the Court disposed of the entire batch of writ petitions, vacated all interim orders and made no order as to costs.
