States Should Adopt Land-for-Land Policies Only in Rarest of Rare Cases

The Supreme Court has cautioned states against their "land-for-land" policies and said such schemes should be floated in "rarest of the rare cases".

A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan further said a plea of deprivation of right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution to oppose the land acquisition by the state was "unsustainable" as it called the litigation pursued by Haryana as "an eye opener" for all states.

The bench was acting on a batch of pleas filed by the Estate Officer of Haryana Urban Development Authority and others challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court's 2016 decision that upheld the trial court decrees favoring oustees.

We have made ourselves very explicitly clear that in cases of land acquisition the plea of deprivation of right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution is unsustainable," Justice Pardiwala said in a 88-page verdict on July 14.

The high court held displaced landowners, whose land was acquired by Haryana authorities for public purposes, entitled to benefit under the 2016 Rehabilitation Policy and not the older, more concessional 1992 scheme.

The verdict was critical of Haryana's "very unusual policy" on land acquisition. Under it, if the government acquires land for public purposes, it provides alternate plots of land to the oustees.

The top court observed only in rarest of rare cases the government might consider floating any scheme for rehabilitation of the displaced persons over and above paying them compensation in terms of money.