logo
States should frame land-for-land policies in rarest of rare case: SC

States should frame land-for-land policies in rarest of rare case: SC

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.
Press Trust of India New Delhi
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.
"At times the State Government with a view to appease its subjects float unnecessary schemes and ultimately land up in difficulties. It would unnecessarily give rise to a number of litigations. The classic example is the one at hand, it added.
It is not necessary that in all cases over and above compensation in terms of money, rehabilitation of the property owners is a must, the bench noted.
Any beneficial measures taken by the Government should be guided only by humanitarian considerations of fairness and equity towards the landowners, it said.
The dispute traces back to the land acquired by the Haryana government in early 1990s.
While compensation was awarded under the Land Acquisition Act, a parallel state policy promised rehabilitation plots to those displaced.
However, the oustees failed to apply in the prescribed format or deposit the required earnest money in line with the 1992 policy terms.
Most of the lawsuits were filed 14 to 20 years after acquisition, seeking mandatory injunction under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act.
Dealing with the issues, the bench said the oustees couldn't claim a legal right to plots at the 1992 rates and the 2016 policy, as revised in 2018, would apply.
It said oustees were criticised for filing civil suits after unjustifiable delays of over a decade, well beyond the three-year period under the Limitation Act.
Though the top court found the suits technically non-maintainable, it exercised equitable jurisdiction to extend the benefit of the 2016 policy.
The respondents (oustees) are not entitled to claim as a matter of legal right relying on the decision of that they should be allotted plots as oustees only at the price as determined in the 1992 policy, it said.
The bench observed oustees were entitled at the most to seek the benefit of the 2016 policy for the purpose of allotment of plots as oustees.
The apex court then granted four weeks to all respondents to make an appropriate online application with deposit of the requisite amount in accordance with the policy of 2016.
"If within a period of four weeks any of the respondents herein prefer any online application in accordance with the scheme of 2016 then in such circumstances the authority concerned shall look into the applications and process the same in accordance with the scheme of 2016, it said.
The bench clarified it would be up to the authority to examine whether the oustees were eligible for the allotment of plots or not.
We make it clear that there shall not be any further extension of time for the purpose of applying online with deposit of the requisite amount, it said.
Observing some of oustees might be rustic and illiterate and unable to apply online, the top court allowed them to apply by preferring an appropriate application or otherwise addressed to the competent authority with the deposit of the requisite amount.
The bench ordered Haryana and HUDA to ensure land grabbers or other miscreants didn't form a cartel to benefit from the allotment of plots.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Breaking News Live July 23: Leaders of ex-Pak PM Imran Khan's PTI handed 10-year jail term in May 9 riot cases
Breaking News Live July 23: Leaders of ex-Pak PM Imran Khan's PTI handed 10-year jail term in May 9 riot cases

Time of India

time27 minutes ago

  • Time of India

Breaking News Live July 23: Leaders of ex-Pak PM Imran Khan's PTI handed 10-year jail term in May 9 riot cases

00:57 (IST) Jul 23 The Supreme Court will hear on Thursday an appeal filed by Maharashtra govt challenging the Bombay high court judgment acquitting all 12 accused, five of whom were sentenced to death by the trial court, in the July 11, 2006 Mumbai train blasts that left 187 dead and 824 injured. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta told a bench led by CJI B R Gavai that the state had filed an appeal against the verdict and said, 'It has serious ramifications. Can it be listed for hearing on Wednesday?' CJI Gavai said he learnt from news reports that 8 accused have already been released from prison. The SG said that was true, but the petition required urgent hearing. Finding additional SG Rajkumar Bhaskar Thakare alongside the SG, the CJI said, 'It was Thakare who had argued the case before the HC. We will list the petition for hearing the day after tomorrow.' The govt in its appeal said the HC misdirected itself into trivialities and misread cogent evidence, leading to failure of justice. It said confessions of the accused persons, admissible under MCOCA, were discarded by HC on technicalities even when they formed a chain of events and outlined the conspiracy to launch the sinister attack on Mumbai suburban trains, which were full of people returning from offices, and cause maximum loss of lives.

Let the washing of (dirty?) linen begin
Let the washing of (dirty?) linen begin

Economic Times

timean hour ago

  • Economic Times

Let the washing of (dirty?) linen begin

Indian polity has always been more disapproving about washing dirty linen in public than actually washing the dirt off linen. Which is why the initiation of impeachment proceedings to remove Justice Yashwant Varma on Monday in Parliament marked an important moment in the spin cycle of the judicial system. While resignation of Rajya Sabha speaker and vice-president Jagdeep Dhankhar took up much of the headlines, it was the submission of a notice of impeachment sponsored by 63 Rajya Sabha members to him - and by 145 Lok Sabha members to lower house speaker Om Birla - that bears more lasting interest. To initiate proceedings, at least 100 Lok Sabha MPs and 50 Rajya Sabha MPs were required to come on board. Proceedings must be initiated as soon as Articles 124 and 217 of the Constitution, a judge can be removed from office for 'proved misbehaviour' or 'incapacity'. While Varma's defence hinges on the fact that discovery of currency notes found on the precincts of his residence does not amount to proof of his ownership or culpability, it has raised serious questions that need answers. For this purpose, Birla and Dhankhar's successor should swiftly verify the impeachment notice, admit it, and constitute a 3-member committee to prepare a report under the Judges (Inquiry) Act 1968. If the committee finds the allegation true, the report would be tabled in the House for discussion and and proper procedure are key tools to fumigate institutions like the judiciary. The fact that no judge in the history of Indian judiciary has been impeached should not have any bearing as to how this particular case proceeds. The object is to ensure a trustworthy judiciary, not to worry about reputational damage.

SC allows Chhattisgarh's ex-CM Bhupesh Baghel to move HC over maintainability of plea against him
SC allows Chhattisgarh's ex-CM Bhupesh Baghel to move HC over maintainability of plea against him

Economic Times

timean hour ago

  • Economic Times

SC allows Chhattisgarh's ex-CM Bhupesh Baghel to move HC over maintainability of plea against him

The Chhattisgarh Congress has announced a statewide chakka jam on July 22 in protest against the arrest of Chaitanya Baghel, son of former Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel, by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). Synopsis The Supreme Court has granted Bhupesh Baghel, former Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh, the opportunity to appeal to the High Court regarding a petition filed by his nephew, Vijay Baghel. The petition alleges violations of the Representation of the Peoples Act during the election. The court has directed the High Court to consider the application after hearing both sides. The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed former Chhattisgarh chief minister Bhupesh Baghel to move the high court over a petition filed against him by his nephew Vijay Baghel. ADVERTISEMENT A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said if such an application is filed, the high court is requested to decide the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the other side before it further proceeds on merits of the case. Allowing Baghel's counsel to withdraw the plea and move "high court-cum-election tribunal", the bench said, "It goes without saying that the observations made in the impugned order shall have no bearing on the merits of the application proposed to be moved on behalf of the petitioner." Senior advocate Vivek Tankha and advocate Sumeer Sodhi, appearing for Baghel, said breach of silence period did not amount to corrupt practice and hence the case was not maintainable. The petition was filed by BJP MP Vijay Baghel who unsuccessfully contested the assembly elections against Bhupesh Baghel from the Patan seat. Vijay said Bhupesh violated the provision of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 by taking out a procession after 5 pm in Patan constituency. He sought nullification of the former CM's election and barring him from contesting polls for six years. (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel) (Catch all the Business News, Breaking News, Budget 2025 Events and Latest News Updates on The Economic Times.) Subscribe to The Economic Times Prime and read the ET ePaper online. NEXT STORY

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store