No infirmity can be found in Clause 8(ii) of Land Pooling Scheme: Punjab and Haryana HC

Read Order: Tejinder Singh Rana and another VS. State of Haryana and others

Tulip Kanth

Chandigarh, August 31, 2021: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently ruled that no infirmity much less illegalities can be found in Clause 8(ii) of the Land Pooling Scheme which was notified in the Haryana Government Gazette for the development of industrial infrastructure.

“The petitioners do not have any legal enforceable right to challenge the Clause or to challenge the rejection of their request for land pooling, specially when they did not opt for the same in time,” said the Bench of Justice Jaswant Singh and Justice Girish Agnihotri.

Two writ petitions had been jointly filed by Tejinder Singh Rana and Narinder Singh Rana with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing Clause 8(ii) of the Land Pooling Scheme to the extent it limits the option for land owners to apply within sixty days of issuance of notification, and when period available for announcing the award is at least four months, being irrational and arbitrary.

The petitioners also sought quashing of a letter whereby petitioners’ application for permission to apply under the Scheme, had been rejected.

It was the pleaded case of the petitioners that a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, was issued on April 1, 2010, for acquiring approximately 3302 acres of land (including the land of the petitioners). On April 4, 2011, Notification under Section 6 was issued and the award in the present case was announced on April 1, 2013.

However, later the petitioners made a request that their entire remaining land be put in with Scheme/Policy of the Department.

The petitioners had contended in their written representation that due to pendency of their writ petition of 2013, they had not submitted their case for land Pooling, as they were hopeful that their writ petition would be allowed and their entire land would be released from acquisition. They had also pointed out that they had not withdrawn the amount of compensation (which is lying with the State of Haryana/LAC).

The Division Bench was of the view that it could not be disputed that the purpose of the Scheme would be frustrated, if the land owners were allowed to opt for the same after the announcement of the award qua those who have opted for the Scheme, a separate award as per the Scheme was announced.

While dismissing this Writ Petition, the Court observed that the petitioners exercised their right to challenge the compulsory acquisition but having chosen to do it, they could not now claim it as a right to allow them to apply for Land Pooling Scheme under the Notification dated August 14,2012 after many years of the date of the award dated April 1,2013.

However, the Court found that in the present case the petitioners after the Scheme dated August 14,2012, did not opt for the land pooling till the award was passed on April 1,2013. Still further in 2013, they instead of opting for land pooling, had decided to challenge the acquisition and the award by way of filing writ petition in this Court.

The object and intent of the Scheme and the R & R (Resettlement and Rehabilitation) Policy(dated November 9,2010) when examined carefully, clearly shows that the object of both, are distinct and different. R & R Policy comes into picture after the acquisition proceedings are completed, whereas, the Scheme relates to pre-acquisition stage (before announcing of the award). Under the Scheme, the persons who opt for Scheme, are given developed land instead of compensation, opined the Court.