Hyderabad: Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court admitted a writ petition seeking additional compensation and rehabilitation benefits under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (LARR) Act, 2013, to despite land acquisition proceedings originally initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The judge was hearing a writ petition filed by Kandukuri Prabhakara Chary, challenging the land acquisition process for his property situated in Ladnapur village, Ramagiri mandal, Peddapalli district. Although the acquisition notices were issued in 2012 and compensation was awarded in 2015, the petitioner did not receive his compensation until 2018. The petitioner contended that since the compensation was paid after the enactment of the 2013 Act, he was entitled to receive its enhanced benefits, including a rehabilitation and resettlement (R&R) package. The petitioner further argued that the authorities circumvented the required procedures laid down in the state government’s GO dated December 19, 2014, which outlines fair compensation protocols for land acquisition cases. The petitioner also claimed that the officials proceeded to take possession of his land, even going so far as to disconnect electricity from his property, without providing him with the necessary R&R rights. The judge, after hearing the arguments raised by the petitioner, questioned the petitioner’s reliance on the 2013 Act, given that the procurement process had been carried out under the 1894 Act. The judge also expressed concern over the delay , noting that the petitioner waited eight years after the award was issued to file his claim. The judge noted that the petitioner accepted the compensation without protest at the time, which raised questions about his entitlement to the benefits under the 2013 Act. The judge found the petitioner’s claim for R&R benefits to be unfounded and characterized him as an opportunistic litigant claiming benefits. The judge ruled that the petitioner was not eligible to receive benefits under the 2013 Act, emphasizing that land acquisition proceedings, once initiated under the 1894 Act and terminated without protest, cannot be reviewed under subsequent legislation.