Address rehab concerns first: HC stays Punjab's land pooling policy

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Thursday stayed the Punjab land pooling policy after the state government refused to withdraw it. Following nearly two hours of arguments, a Bench of Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Deepak Manchanda issued the stay and granted the Punjab Government four weeks to address concerns. The case will come up for further hearing on September 10.

What is colourable legislation

Advertisement

The doctrine of colourable legislation is based on the principle that what can’t be done directly, can’t be done indirectly

It stops lawmakers from bypassing constitutional limits through disguised laws; courts strike down such indirect overreach

At the outset, the Bench raised concerns regarding the lack of provision for the rehabilitation of landless labourers and others dependent on the land for their livelihood. It also questioned the government’s decision not to conduct a mandatory social impact assessment before identifying land for acquisition.

Appearing before the Bench, Advocate-General Maninderjit Singh Bedi and senior advocate Gurminder Singh argued that the policy was voluntary. They explained that land suitable for development projects was identified and landowners were invited to participate through public notices. “Only after the landowners’ consent, the land is acquired in exchange for developed houses,” the Bench was told.

Gurminder Singh added that the policy aimed at checking the growth of illegal colonies in Punjab, warning that without such measures, the state could turn into a “slum”. The state argued that the social impact assessment was not required at the current stage because the development work had not started yet and the acquisition was not carried under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

The Bench was also told that the projects would not be handed over to any private builders. Senior advocate Shailendra Jain, serving as amicus curiae, contended that carrying out a social impact assessment before land identification was not just important but mandatory as per the Supreme Court guidelines. Not carrying the assessment would create an “unreasonable classification” between the 2013 Act and the policy, he said.

Petitioner Gurdeep Singh Gill had earlier contended that the policy was an act of “colourable legislation”, allegedly framed under a Central law that contained no enabling provision for such a scheme. His counsels Gurjeet Singh Gill, Manan Kheterpal, Manat Kaur, Rahul Jadge and Rajat Verma also sought directions for its quashing, arguing that it was ultra vires, arbitrary and violated constitutional rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, and 300-A.