Ulavapadu Mandal in Andhra Pradesh's Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore district witnessed strong opposition from farmers against the State government's plan to acquire approximately 8,348 acres of agricultural land. The land is proposed to be allocated to M/s Indosol Solar Private Limited for setting up a solar power project worth ₹69,000 crores. The opposition originates from the fact that a significant portion of the land planned for government acquisition is owned by people belonging to the scheduled tribes. Even after the strong protests and opposition, as per the gazette dated December 20, 2025, the acquisition of 44.99 acres in Karedu village has been formally declared for acquisition under Section 19(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013.
Schedule V of the Constitution of India regulates “Scheduled Areas” and provides safeguards to protect these areas. While the President notifies such Scheduled Areas, the Governor makes rules and regulations to protect their customs and governance, and prevents them from exploitation. Further, the Constitution also empowers the State to exercise the power of Eminent Domain, which gives authority to the State to use, acquire and hold land in its possession for public purposes, subject to fair compensation. Over the years, the State has been acquiring land for various public purposes due to which scheduled communities have a profound impact on their livelihood, but if the due process during these acquisitions is not followed, then their rights are compromised. In this article, we will explore the legal framework regarding land acquisition and the due process that must be followed while acquiring land for public purposes.
Many a time, the due legal procedure has been ignored while acquiring land, which has led to resistance among the public and the intervention of the judiciary. One such example is the protest against the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) in April 2022, which became one of the most widely supported people’s movements in Karnataka. The Karnataka government proposed to acquire approximately 1,777 acres of agricultural land in Devanahalli, Karnataka, for defence and aerospace purposes. The acquisition was rejected by over 95% of the families residing there. In June 2025, these families wrote an open letter to the Chief Minister pointing not only to the economic and emotional distress but also the violation of the law. The proposed acquisition violated the Karnataka SC/ST Land Transfer Prohibition Act, 1978, as around 160 families from the SC/ST communities were affected by this land acquisition.
Similarly, public agitation arose in 2020, when the Nagaon district administration forcefully evicted many families with the help of police and paramilitary forces for setting up a 15-megawatt solar power plant in Mikir Bamuni Grant and Lalung village under the Samaguri revenue circle.
In another instance, the Telangana government planned to acquire 1,374 acres of agricultural land owned by the SC/ST and OBC communities of land over the 16,000 acres of land already acquired by the previous government for setting up an ultra-modern Pharma City in Vikarabad, Telangana. The villagers protested the acquisition, stating that due process was not followed. Amid these public agitations, the State government withdrew the proposal for setting up the “Pharma village”, but it plans to issue a fresh notification to develop an industrial corridor, as the locals voluntarily agreed to give their land for non-polluting and non-pharma industries.
The Supreme Court in the case, Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah upheld the Calcutta High Court’s decision and laid down a procedural safeguard in compliance with Article 300A of the Constitution that must be incorporated while drafting laws that empower the State to compulsorily acquire the land for public purposes. The Supreme Court further elaborated on the scope of rights derived from Article 300A of the Constitution and held that Article 300A provides protection beyond specifying the compensation. The Supreme Court explained that to qualify the constitutional regime of property rights as laid down under Article 300A, the law should not only give the right to the State to acquire land and provide the payable compensation, but also must lay down a fair and transparent procedure of such acquisition.
The seven procedural safeguards and sub-rights in line with Article 300A of the Constitution comprise:
(i) The right to notice: The State must give a prior notice to the person whose land it intends to acquire, the notice must be clear, coherent and meaningful,
(ii) The right to be heard: The State must hear the objection to such acquisition by the property’s owner, the right to be heard regarding the acquisition must be genuine and not just a formality,
(iii) The right to a reasoned decision: The authority after been heard and considered the objection regarding the proposed acquisition must inform the owner the decision to acquire, the authority must take informed decision and communicate the same to the owner,
(iv) The right to restitution and fair compensation: A person’s right to hold and enjoy the property under Article 300A is a constitutional right and deprivation or extinguishment of that right is allowed only upon fair monetary compensation or rehabilitation,
(v) The right to an efficient and expeditious process: It is the duty of the State to be efficient with the acquisition process and conclude it with the reasonable timelines,
(vi) The duty to acquire only for public purposes: The acquisition must be for a public purpose, must align with the larger constitutional vision of welfare state, and
(vii) The right to a conclusion: The land acquisition proceedings reach the conclusion only when the physical possession of the land is taken over by the State.
The Supreme Court held that, even though the right to property was removed from the fundamental rights in Part III of the Constitution and moved to Part XII under the constitutional right through the 44th constitutional amendment does not change the fact that there continues to be a safety net against the arbitrary and unfair land acquisition and only the provision of the compensation would not save such arbitrary land acquisition from being held as unconstitutional. Further, the court held that these seven procedural safeguards and sub-rights are essential elements of legislation that is in accordance with Article 300A of the Constitution, and omission of any of these seven safeguards would render the law being challenged.
The recurring disputes around land acquisition across different States in India throw light on one critical reality that many of these conflicts could have been avoided if a proper due diligence process had been followed. Due diligence helps to investigate exactly who owns the land and if it can legally be acquired or used for industrial purposes. Before starting any new projects, companies must ensure that the title of the land is clear, the land is not under any dispute, and it can be used for non-agricultural purposes. Failure to examine important documents like land records, encumbrance certificates, land zoning rules, etc., may adversely affect the companies at a later stage. Many lands owned by the SC/ST communities fall within scheduled areas. It is equally important to identify whether the land falls under special protection, and if it does, prior permission from the relevant authority must be obtained. Obtaining necessary permissions and following the procedure is not optional in these circumstances, but becomes a legal necessity. Due diligence is not just paperwork, but it is a process of assessing potential risks which should be addressed and must not be overlooked. A due diligence report inter-alia captures any ongoing litigation, encumbrances, adverse possession over the land parcel.
Right to property goes beyond compensation, as has been reinforced by the Supreme Court in the matter of Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah. It is imperative that there be a fair, transparent and legally sound process for communities to rely on. All acquisition laws must incorporate the seven procedural safeguards identified by the Court. When these safeguards are bypassed, it brings up the risks of being legally challenged, along with social unrest and reputational damage. It is only when public authorities and private developers adhere strictly to the due process, as is constitutionally required, that legitimacy and long term project stability are ensured.
About the authors: Shruti Choudhary is a Senior Associate and Rakshita Shri is an Associate at Ahlawat & Associates.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s). The opinions presented do not necessarily reflect the views of Bar & Bench.
If you would like your Deals, Columns, Press Releases to be published on Bar & Bench, please fill in the form available here.