Punjab govt withdraws land pooling policy

Indian Express

a day ago

Buckling under pressure from farmers and landowners, the Punjab government has withdrawn its controversial land pooling policy, just four days after the Punjab and Haryana High Court stayed its operation for four weeks. Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann signed the withdrawal file on Monday evening.
The housing department had put up the file earlier in the day, and sources said the decision followed an assessment that the protests against the policy had become 'too hot to handle.' According to insiders, the top leadership of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) felt the backlash had 'overshadowed' the government's other achievements.
The government will now seek the Cabinet's ex-post facto approval, deciding not to wait for the next Cabinet meeting before acting. In a statement, Principal Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Vikas Garg, said: 'Government hereby withdraws the Land Pooling Policy dated 14.5.2025 and its subsequent amendments. Consequently, all actions, like LOIs issued, registries done or any other action taken thereunder shall be reversed henceforth.'
The policy, which had identified over 40,000 acres for pooling, had faced fierce opposition from farmers, landowners and political parties. At least 115 panchayats had passed resolutions refusing to offer land under the scheme.
On Friday, the HC Bench of Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Deepak Manchanda stayed the policy till September 10, flagging multiple legal and procedural flaws — from the absence of environmental and social impact assessments to the lack of timelines, grievance redressal and budgetary clarity.
The court observed it was 'prima facie… of the view that the policy appears to have been notified in haste' without addressing key requirements such as Social Impact Assessment (SIA), Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), fixed timelines, and a grievance redressal mechanism.
It noted that the State planned to 'take over tens of thousands of acres of fertile land' without conducting SIA or EIA, despite Supreme Court directives making such studies mandatory before urban development. Citing Resident's Welfare Association vs UT of Chandigarh (2023), the Bench reiterated that governments must strike 'a proper balance… between sustainable development and environmental protection.'
While the State argued the policy was 'purely voluntary,' the court pointed to Clause 6 of the May 14 notification, which allowed compulsory acquisition under the 2013 land acquisition law for land not offered under pooling. This, the Bench held, brought the scheme within the scope of the law, triggering requirements for impact studies and safeguards.
The judges flagged the absence of any rehabilitation plan for landless labourers, artisans, MGNREGA workers and others dependent on the land. 'Payment of subsistence allowance has been provided to the land owners, but there is no provision for rehabilitation of those… dependent on the land,' the order said. The Bench also reminded that acquisition of multi-cropped land was barred under the 2013 law, except in exceptional circumstances.
Other gaps included the lack of prescribed timelines for voluntary participation, possession, start or completion of development, delivery of developed land to owners, and payment of subsistence allowances. The policy also had no grievance redressal mechanism or penalty provisions for delays and non-delivery.
The court noted that the Amicus Curiae had pegged development costs at ₹1.25 crore per acre — around ₹10,000 crore for Ludhiana district alone — and that the State's counsel had 'no instructions' on any budgetary provision.
Referring to past pooling schemes, the judges cited examples where landowners surrendered plots but did not receive developed land for years. In one Mohali case, 'developed plots have not been allotted even after ten years' and development had not begun in the designated sectors.
Calling the targeted land 'amongst the most fertile in the State of Punjab,' the Bench warned the acquisition could 'impact the social milieu' and stressed the need for careful evaluation before proceeding.
The policy, notified on May 14 and June 4 and amended on July 25, was stayed 'lest any rights are created,' with the matter listed for September 10. The State has been directed to address all concerns and file its reply before that date.