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

West Bengal Governor to move Supreme Court over control of state universities
West Bengal Governor to move Supreme Court over control of state universities

Indian Express

time7 minutes ago

  • Indian Express

West Bengal Governor to move Supreme Court over control of state universities

In another escalation of the ongoing tussle between the West Bengal government and the Raj Bhavan over higher education governance, Governor CV Ananda Bose on Saturday said he plans to seek clarity from the Supreme Court on whether ultimate authority over state universities lies with the chancellor (governor) or the state government. The move comes after a meeting between Bose and vice chancellors (VCs) of state-run universities at the Raj Bhavan, convened to address key issues in the state's higher education sector. The meeting was attended by nine VCs, with most others remaining absent. Several VCs who skipped the meeting claimed they faced obstructions from the higher education department, while others alleged they were gheraoed or faced hostile conditions on campus. Some sought appointments with the governor to explain their absence. Sources in Raj Bhavan suggest absenteeism has not been taken lightly. 'This is an issue that requires clarification. What is the role of the chancellor or the role of the government? The Supreme Court will be approached to determine who holds the ultimate authority over state universities — the chancellor (governor) or the state government,' Bose told reporters at the Raj Bhavan. The meeting had a wide-ranging agenda, from digital reforms and manpower gaps to implementation of NEP 2020 and awareness on cybersecurity and drug addiction.

Bengal Governor CV Ananda Bose to move Supreme Court over control of state universities
Bengal Governor CV Ananda Bose to move Supreme Court over control of state universities

Time of India

time23 minutes ago

  • Time of India

Bengal Governor CV Ananda Bose to move Supreme Court over control of state universities

Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel In another escalation of the ongoing tussle between the West Bengal government and the Raj Bhavan over higher education governance, Governor CV Ananda Bose on Saturday said he plans to seek clarity from the Supreme Court on whether ultimate authority over state universities lies with the chancellor (governor) or the state move comes after a meeting between Bose and vice chancellors (VCs) of state-run universities at the Raj Bhavan, convened to address key issues in the state's higher education sector. The meeting was attended by nine VCs, with most others remaining VCs who skipped the meeting claimed they faced obstructions from the higher education department, while others alleged they were gheraoed or faced hostile conditions on campus. Some sought appointments with the governor to explain their in Raj Bhavan suggest absenteeism has not been taken lightly."This is an issue that requires clarification. What is the role of the chancellor or the role of the government? The Supreme Court will be approached to determine who holds the ultimate authority over state universities - the chancellor (governor) or the state government," Bose told reporters at the Raj meeting had a wide-ranging agenda, from digital reforms and manpower gaps to implementation of NEP 2020 and awareness on cybersecurity and drug addiction.

EC's refusal to accept Aadhaar as voter ID in Bihar is 'absurd': ADR
EC's refusal to accept Aadhaar as voter ID in Bihar is 'absurd': ADR

Business Standard

time37 minutes ago

  • Business Standard

EC's refusal to accept Aadhaar as voter ID in Bihar is 'absurd': ADR

The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) has told the Supreme Court that the Election Commission's (EC) claim of having constitutional powers to verify voters' citizenship during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar's electoral rolls contradicts earlier court rulings. According to a report by The Indian Express, ADR also criticised the EC for excluding Aadhaar and ration cards as acceptable proof of identity, calling the move 'patently absurd,' especially as Aadhaar is widely used for passports, caste certificates, and permanent residency documents. 'Grave fraud' in rush to revise rolls The ADR, the petitioner in the matter, argued that the EC has not provided valid reasons for hurrying through the revision ahead of Bihar's Assembly polls. The group described the process as a 'grave fraud' on the state's electorate. The revision exercise, announced on June 24, has been controversial due to its timing and new requirement that voters registered after 2003 must provide several documents to stay on the electoral rolls. This has raised fears that many legitimate voters could be disenfranchised. ADR has submitted its response to the EC's affidavit, filed on July 21. In that affidavit, the EC claimed that Article 326 of the Constitution permits it to verify the citizenship of voters and clarified that being removed from the electoral roll does not mean loss of citizenship. The matter will be heard next on 28 July. Citizenship verification against court judgments? ADR argued that the EC's claim of authority to verify citizenship goes against earlier Supreme Court decisions. It cited Lal Babu Hussain vs Union of India (1995), which stated that the burden of proving citizenship lies with new applicants, not existing voters. It also referenced Inderjit Barua vs ECI (1985), where the court held that being on the electoral roll is strong proof of citizenship, and the onus to disprove it lies with those who object. ADR criticised the EC's directive requiring voters added after 2003 to produce one of 11 specified documents, saying this wrongly shifts the burden of proof to voters. 'It is submitted that the SIR process shifts the onus of citizenship proof on all existing electors in a state, whose names were registered by the ECI through a due process,' ADR said. The group questioned why the existing legal procedures under the Representation of the People Act and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 had to be replaced with a fresh set of documentation and a new form. ADR also said the EC had not provided any data showing foreign nationals or illegal migrants had been included in the electoral rolls. EC's Aadhaar rejection 'absurd' In its July 21 affidavit, the EC refused to accept the Supreme Court's suggestion to include Aadhaar, ration cards, and Voter ID as valid documents, arguing that Aadhaar and ration cards can be obtained using false papers. ADR countered that the EC's list of 11 acceptable documents is also open to fraud. It added, 'The fact that Aadhaar card is one of the documents accepted for obtaining Permanent Residence Certificate, OBC/SC/ST Certificate and for passport – makes ECI's rejection of Aadhar (which is most widely held document) under the instant SIR order patently absurd.' 'Violations' by officials ADR alleged that EC officials on the ground are not following the Commission's own rules. The June 24 guidelines required Block Level Officers (BLOs) to visit each home and provide two forms per voter. But ADR said many voters had not met any BLOs and had not signed any forms, yet their submissions were recorded online. 'Forms of even dead individuals have been reported to have been submitted,' it added. ADR also criticised the lack of a clear process for verifying these forms and documents, saying this gave Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) excessive powers that could lead to widespread disenfranchisement. Why target post-2003 voters? The EC's order says that the 2003 electoral roll is proof of citizenship for voters already registered. For those born after July 1, 1987, the EC asks for proof of citizenship from at least one parent. If the parent appears on the 2003 roll, the child may rely on that. ADR said this distinction was unfair and placed those registered after 2003 at 'a larger risk of disenfranchisement.' It also questioned why the EC had not submitted the 2003 revision order to the Court and asked for it to be produced. In contrast, during the 2004 revision exercise in the North East, only new voters had to submit documents, and that process took over six months (July 1, 2004 to January 3, 2005). In Bihar, the entire process is being compressed into three months -- from June 25 to September 30. 2025 roll already revised ADR also asked why a fresh revision is needed when the 2025 electoral roll was already updated and published in January this year. The group said the roll is regularly updated to account for deaths, migration, and other changes. ADR also highlighted an August 11, 2023 EC circular to state CEOs, directing them to delete names of electors who had died, moved, or were duplicates. The EC claimed the current SIR was being held in response to concerns raised by political parties. But ADR said, 'not a single political party had asked ECI for a de novo exercise such as the one prescribed in the instant SIR order'. Instead, parties had raised concerns about fake votes being added, genuine opposition voters being deleted, and irregular voting after polls had closed. Supreme Court's interim observations The case was first heard on July 10 by a vacation bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi. While the Court did not halt the process, it suggested the EC consider allowing Aadhaar, Voter ID, and ration cards as valid documents, in addition to the 11 listed. The EC was told to submit its affidavit by July 21, and the matter will be heard again on July 28. As of Friday, the EC said it had received forms from 72.3 million voters for inclusion in the draft roll. Around 6.5 million names are to be deleted due to death, permanent migration, duplicate entries, or because the voter was untraceable. Further deletions may occur after the draft roll is published. Between August 1 and September 1, those whose names are missing from the draft will be able to file claims and objections.

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