Case Name: Chodisetty Nirmalatha v. State of A.P.; Gade Hanumantha Rao Naidu v. State of A.P.
Writ Petition No.: Writ Appeal No. 849 & 850 of 2026
Date: 13th July 2026
Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Quorum: Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Purushottam Kumar Chintalapudi
FACTS
In the year 2026, that is, on January 8, the Andhra Pradesh Government put into operation the acquisition process of land for the E-3 Seed Access Road scheme by notifying the pertinent provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The landowners petitioners in the writ petition preferred their preliminary objections to the District Collector, which went in vain. Following this, the notification, in furtherance of the State’s power under Section 19(1) of the Act, was issued on June 3, 2026. The appellants filed writ petitions, claiming that the State flouted mandatory statutory procedures under Sections 11, 16, 17, and 18 of the Act and that they were to be forcibly dispossessed imminently. A Single Judge refused to grant interim relief to stay acquisition on the ground that the public interest was involved and most of the necessary land had already been acquired under the Land Pooling Scheme.
LEGAL ISSUES
- Was the Single Judge’s decision not to grant interim relief correct in view of his conclusion regarding non-compliance with necessary land acquisition requirements?
- Was the ongoing acquisition process in violation of the appellants constitutional right to property under Article 300-A due to non-compliance with established legal procedures?
- Was it necessary to afford interim protection against dispossession pending the hearing of the writ petitions?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- According to Article 300-A of the Indian Constitution, nobody can be deprived of their property except when it is necessary under law.
- Section 11 of the LA&RR Act, 2013 mentions the necessity of a preliminary notification about land acquisition.
- Section 15 of the LA&RR Act, 2013 talks about the procedure for preliminary objection hearings.
- Sections 16, 17, 18, and 19(1) of the LA&RR Act, 2013 explain the obligatory processes with respect to rehabilitation and resettlement as well as the publication of the summary of rehabilitation and resettlement.
- Section 10(A) of the LA&RR Act, 2013 denotes exemption from social impact assessments of certain projects.
ARGUMENTS
PETITIONERS – The appellants said that the respondents violated the provisions for procedural processes as mentioned in the LA&RR Act. They exchanged the facts and noted that the previous notification of the year 2018 had referred to 16 families that needed to be rehabilitated, and in the notification of 2026, absolutely nothing was mentioned for rehabilitation. Their argument was based on the lack of the obligatory administrative approval for the project as stipulated in Rule 3 of the LA&RR Rules, 2014. Citing Premji Nathu v. State of Gujarat, (2012) 5 SCC 250, and Dhanjaya Reddy v. State of Karnataka, (2001) 4 SCC 9, they contended that legislative powers must be exercised in compliance with the established order and must comply with the prescribed procedure; otherwise, it would lead to violations contrary to Article 300-A.
RESPONDENTS – A State official stated that the E-3 Seed Access Road is a very important public infrastructure project aimed at connecting the Capital City Region. The official said that out of the Ac.280.9956 required, almost all had been acquired in the form of voluntary Land Pooling, except for about Ac.2.725 that has to be acquired. Therefore, the State claimed that it had taken care of all procedural requirements and has already awarded compensation on July 10, 2026, which the appellants refused to accept. The State supported the Single Judge’s authority to weigh public interest against miles of land and took help from the cases of Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh, (1993) 1 SCC 325; Kolkata Mun. Corp. v. Bimal Kumar Shah, (2024) 10 SCC 533; Jayabheri Props. Pvt. Ltd. v. State of A.P., (2010) 5 SCC 590; and Estate Officer, Haryana Urb. Dev. Auth. v. Nirmala Devi, Civil Appeal No. 7707 of 2025 (July 14, 2025).
ANALYSIS
The Division Bench performed a thorough legal assessment weighing up the implementation of public infrastructure against constitutional protections. The Court highlighted the point that Art. 300-A provides that no person can be deprived of his/her property except in accordance with law, which imposes the obligation of strict compliance with the procedure prescribed by law. The Court disregarded the suggestion that the small size of the land in question (Ac. 2.725 cents) diminished the rights of the owner in law, mentioning that the constitutional protection of property does not depend on its size or area. The Court recognised that generally larger public interest takes precedence over individual rights but was of the opinion that the public interest cannot be an excuse for departing from the mandatory statutory requirement of the LA&RR Act of 2013.
Further, the Court noted a distinction in the results between the two appeals, depending on the factual development occurring after the Single Judge’s order. About W.A. No. 850 of 2026, the request for interim stay against dispossession was rendered academic, the reason being that possession had already been taken and compensation deposited prior to the commencement of these proceedings. As for W.A. No. 849 of 2026, the Court came to a conclusion that the procedural flaws – like those related to the absence of the dates for administrative approvals and deteriorated status of rehabilitation – were serious enough to require further examination once the counter-affidavits appeared on file.
JUDGEMENT
The High Court dealt with W.A.No.849 of 2026 and continued to offer interim protection from dispossession of property until the Single Judge decides on the interim relief application pending in the writ petition. The State was instructed to file counter-affidavits without delay. The appeal W.A.No. 850 of 2026 was disposed of as withdrawn for the fifth appellant, and the rest of the appeal was disposed of without affecting the orders passed by the Single Judge since the State was already in possession of that property in question.
CONCLUSION
The High Court strikes a significant balance between implementing public infrastructure projects and protecting property rights. By granting interim protection when possession is awaited, the Court stressed that the constitutional protection under Article 300-A requires strict observance of statutory provisions so that public utility projects do not override necessary procedural safeguards.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: SWETHA DUTTA
Read the Judgment copy below : Chodisetty Nirmalatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others_ Gade Hanumantha Rao Naidu and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others
