Telangana
,
Kandukur, Yacharam, Kadtal tehsils
,
Ranga Reddy
Published :
Oct 2016
|
Updated :
August 19, 2026
Farmers oppose land acquisition for Green Pharma City project in Telangana
Reported by
Seethalakshmi
Legal Review by
Anmol Gupta
Amrita Chekkutty
Edited by
Anupa Kujur
Households affected
14400
People affected
2016
Year started
7823.96
ha.
Land area affected
Households affected
14400
People Affected
2016
Year started
7823.96
Land area affected
Key Insights
Sector
Industry
Reason/Cause of conflict
Pharmaceutical Industry
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Rural
Unclassifed
Sector
Industry
Reason/Cause of conflict
Pharmaceutical Industry
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Rural
Ended
1
Summary

The Green Pharma City project, planned within 40 kilometres of Hyderabad, involved the acquisition of 19,333 acres of land in Ranga Reddy district. The project is expected to create 5.6 lakh direct and indirect job opportunities, with an estimated investment of Rs 16,784 crore. Apart from drug manufacturing companies, there is a proposal to set up a pharma university as part of the project, raising concerns that farmers from 20 villages were to lose their landholdings due to the project development. 

The Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation started land acquisition in 2016. The primary contention of the farmers was that they were being compensated at rates much lower than the prevailing market rate. While the cost per acre for Yacharam tehsil was Rs 7.5 lakh, the market price was Rs 22.5 lakh. The market price went up to more than Rs 80 lakh per acre in Kandukur tehsil. Moreover, violating the Supreme Court's judgement in the Mekala Pandu case, the government had also been compensating assigned lands and _patta _lands at different rates.

The unavailability of information had impaired the process of challenging environmental clearances (EC) within 90 days. There had been multiple inadequacies reported in the compensation process, as 18-year-olds were paid as adults, who are legally not eligible for compensation directly.
In response to a petition by eight farmers cultivating government-assigned lands from Kurmidda village, the Telangana High Court stayed the land acquisition process in September 2016

In May 2018, an expert appraisal committee of the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change recommended granting EC to the project, on the condition that land is acquired with suitable compensation and the consent of land owners. Local activists say the authorities are, however, going ahead with land acquisition in violation of court orders by resorting to threats and spreading misinformation.

Some farmers who had earlier surrendered their lands began tilling them again in 2019, contending that the project had not made any progress and that the compensation had been highly inadequate.

In October 2020, when a meeting regarding the Pharma City project was held by officials, villagers flung chairs and raised slogans, enraged by the opacity of the process and their exclusion from it. This led to the police intervening and detaining them.

In February 2021, hundreds of farmers from Yacharam and Kadtal tehsils participated in a protest march opposing the project. One of the local organisations, Pharma City Vyatireka Porata Committee, demanded that the government stop the forceful acquisition of lands.

On 5 August 2023, the Telangana High Court quashed the notices regarding the acquisition of the land due to procedural irregularities found in the matter. Later in 2023, farmers returned to court with fresh petitions, alleging that officials were still interfering with their lands despite the High Court’s directions to halt and restart acquisition.

In August 2024, a single judge set aside a 2017 preliminary notification and related declarations for 250 acres, ordering the state to restart the process from the objections stage and to pay compensation based on current market value. 

Despite these orders, farmers allege that officials continued to survey and fence lands and even removed their names from the Dharani land portal, actions later acknowledged in court as illegal. According to a report by The Federal, the High Court struck down 12 acquisition‑related declarations and issued stays, yet many protesting farmers remain excluded from official records, leading them to describe Pharma City as a “nightmare” and a symbol of betrayal and displacement. 

In September 2024, the state appealed the single-judge order; a division bench issued notices to 72 farmers and the government, while Revenue Principal Secretary Navin Mittal insisted in a counter‑affidavit that Pharma City was not scrapped and that the Government order is still valid. Mittal clarified that no orders or decisions have been made to revoke GO 31 and that the government is actively implementing the project. 

The Advocate‑General similarly assured the court that land would be used for green pharma purposes and that farmers would receive compensation and also 'Rythu Bandhu' scheme benefits. In 2025, the Congress government announced the Bharat Future City Development Authority (BFCDA) over the same region, envisioning a multi‑sector hub and assigning some of the already acquired Pharma City land to a skill university and sports hub. 

Assigning the land for another project has reignited farmers’ demands for the return of their land if the Pharma City project does not move forward. This is in addition to the approval required from the High Court for the allocation. 

2
Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Demand for more compensation than promised

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Region Classification

Rural

Type of Land

Common and Private

Forest and Non-Forest, Non-Forest (Grazing Land), Non-Forest (Other than Grazing Land)

What was the action taken by the police?

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?

Legislation under which the accused was charged

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Details of sources (names of accused, names and numbers of any lawyers, names of any police officers contacted)

Status of Project

Project underway despite protests

Original Project Deadline

2025

Whether the Project has been Delayed

No

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

Agricultural land

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

Total investment involved (in Crores):

16784

Type of investment:

Cost of Project

Year of Estimation

2016

Page Number In Investment Document:

Has the Conflict Ended?

No

When did it end?

Why did the conflict end?

4
Additional Information

Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:

Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TSIIC), Revenue Department, Roads & Buildings Department

PSUs Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?

No

Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached

Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?

No

Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:

Affected villagers

5
Information on the use of criminal law

What was the action taken by the police?

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?

Legislation under which the accused was charged

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Legal Supporting Documents

JOIN
THE LCW COMMUNITY
Exclusive monthly policy briefs, stories from the ground, Quarterly Analytics report, Curated Expert talks, merchandise and much more.


Support our work.
Sign Up Today
Conflicts Map
Conflict Database
About Us