Punjab: Land pooling policy notified in haste, social, green concerns not addressed, says high court

Hindustan Times

2 days ago

The land pooling policy appears to have been notified in a 'haste' and concerns, including social impact assessment, environmental issues, timelines and grievance redressal mechanism, should have been addressed at the very outset before its announcement, the Punjab and Haryana high court has said while staying the scheme announced by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government in Punjab for 'planned urban development'. HC notes that landowners, landless labourers, artisans, MGNREGA workers, etc, will be affected and there is no provision for their resettlement and rehabilitation under the land pooling policy. (Getty Images/iStockphoto)
The bench of justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and justice Deepak Manchanda noted that the land which is sought to be acquired is amongst the most fertile land in the state and it is possible that it may impact the social milieu. '…the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 bars the acquisition of multi-cropped land. Such acquisition is permissible only in exceptional circumstances,' the bench said in the detailed order released on Saturday.
The court had stayed implementation of the scheme on August 7 on the plea of one Gurdeep Singh Gill, from Ludhiana, who had contended the scheme was notified without carrying out the necessary environment and social impact assessment which is an essential prerequisite for acquisition of land under Sections 4 to 8 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. He had sought quashing of the same. Under the scheme notified on June 4, the government plans to acquire 65,533 acres of land across 21 cities and towns in the state to develop both industrial and residential zones. It was dubbed as the largest acquisition of land by the government in the state since 1966. However, since its announcement, the policy has come under severe criticism from the political parties and farmer bodies, who are terming it as a 'looting scheme to usurp fertile land'.
Even as the government argued that the scheme was voluntary, the court took note of the submissions of amicus curiae Shailendra Jain who had pointed out that as per the notification, the land is proposed to be acquired through direct purchase from the owners, but at the same time the remaining land is to be acquired by way of 'compulsory acquisition' under the Land Acquisition Act, 2013. 'The state having not conducted any social/ environment assessment studies would be in violation of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013,' he had submitted.
The court also noted that a large number of landowners and others who themselves do not own land, viz. landless labourers, artisans, MGNREGA workers and those carrying out other occupations in villages, would be affected and there is no provision for their resettlement and rehabilitation under the land pooling policy. 'Under the Land Acquisition Act, 2013, it is necessary to carry out the social impact assessment before carrying out any acquisition to address such issues, as the constitution conceives the nation to be a welfare state,' the court remarked.
The court also reasoned that the policy proposes to have access to large parcels of land and in Ludhiana alone 7,806 acres are to be acquired but no environmental impact assessment has been carried out. 'Such large-scale acquisition may have an adverse impact on the environment and biodiversity of the area,' it added.
The court also noted the concerns that while one category of landowners would get compensation under the scheme but those who do not opt for it, their land would be acquired under land acquisition law. Hence, compensation would be different in terms of the cited law. Therefore, the policy is 'arbitrary and unconstitutional'.
It further noted concerns of Jain that no grievance redressal mechanism has been put in place for those persons whose land falls under the policy or those who are otherwise affected by the policy.
The government had argued that land would not be handed over for development to private players and development would be carried out by the state's statutory bodies, including GLADA, GMADA etc. However, the court noted concerns of the amicus curiae that for Ludhiana alone, ₹10,000 crore would be required, but no budgetary provisions appear to have been made to indicate that the state has adequate resources to finance the development project under this policy.
The court further said that even as the stand of the state is that social impact assessment or environmental impact assessment study is not required at this stage, but the Supreme Court held in several cases that before permitting urban development, the state ought to carry out an environmental impact assessment. Now, the hearing stands deferred until September 10 by when state's advocate general Maninderjit Singh Bedi has assured that all concerns of the court would be addressed.