Andhra Pradesh High Court Orders Redetermination of Farmer’s Land Acquisition Compensation on Par with Other Landowners Who Received Enhanced Amount
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has directed the authorities to reconsider and redetermine the compensation payable to a landowner whose property was acquired for the construction of National Highway-216, ensuring parity with similarly situated landowners who received enhanced compensation.
The ruling came in a writ petition filed by Tadimalla Srimannarayana Prasad, whose land situated in Ganganapalle village had been acquired for the highway project.
The original compensation for the petitioner’s land was determined through an award dated March 31, 2016. However, several other landowners whose properties were acquired in the same area subsequently obtained enhanced compensation through an arbitral award dated March 30, 2026.
The arbitrator treated the acquired properties as non-agricultural land and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs 4,500 per square yard.
Seeking similar treatment, the petitioner approached the authorities and requested that his compensation also be redetermined on the same basis as the enhanced compensation granted to other landowners.
However, his request was rejected by the authorities on the ground that he had not submitted an application within the prescribed limitation period calculated from the original compensation award of 2016.
Aggrieved by the rejection, the petitioner approached the High Court, arguing that his claim was not an ordinary challenge to the original compensation award. Instead, he was seeking equal treatment following the subsequent enhancement granted to similarly situated landowners.
The High Court accepted the petitioner’s contention and observed that the right to seek parity in compensation arose when the compensation of similarly situated landowners was enhanced on March 30, 2026, rather than on the date of the original award in 2016.
The Court held that the authorities had adopted an erroneous approach by treating the petitioner’s representation as a request for fresh determination of the original compensation instead of examining his claim for parity with other landowners.
The Court further clarified that the application of limitation principles must be considered in the context of the nature of the relief sought. It noted that the petitioner’s claim arose from the subsequent enhancement granted to other landowners.
Another important aspect of the judgment concerned the authority competent to decide the petitioner’s claim. The Court held that the Joint Collector was not the competent authority to decide the issue of enhancement under the applicable statutory framework.
The District Collector was identified as the competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner’s request for redetermination of compensation.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the endorsement dated May 18, 2026, through which the petitioner’s request had been rejected.
The Court directed the District Collector to redetermine the compensation payable for the petitioner’s acquired lands in accordance with the enhanced award granted to similarly situated landowners. The exercise was directed to be completed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the Court’s order.
The writ petition was accordingly allowed, and no order as to costs was passed.
The judgment is significant for landowners affected by infrastructure and highway projects, as it recognises the importance of equal treatment where similarly situated properties have received enhanced compensation.
It also reinforces that a claim for parity arising from a subsequent enhancement cannot automatically be treated as a delayed challenge to the original acquisition award. The competent authorities must examine the nature of the claim and apply the relevant statutory provisions accordingly.
