High Court issues notice to Punjab on plea against land pooling policy
Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium
Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only BenefitsThe High Court on Wednesday put Punjab on notice on a petition challenging the land pooling policy.
Among other things, it was contended that the policy was an act of colourable legislation allegedly framed under a Central law that contains no enabling provision for such a policy. Taking up the petition, the Division Bench of Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Deepak Manchanda also fixed August 6 as the next date of hearing in the matter.
In his petition, Gurdeep Singh Gill, through counsel Gurjeet Singh Gill, Manan Kheterpal and Rajat Verma, sought directions for quashing the notification and the policy as ultra vires, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 read with Article 300-A of the Constitution. A writ of prohibition was also sought to restrain the state from proceeding further under the policy, along with a direction to act strictly under the provisions of the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (LARR) if land acquisition was to be undertaken.
They contended that the policy — issued vide notification dated June 4 –– had no statutory backing under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARR Act). The plea asserted that the LARR Act did not empower the state to frame any such pooling policy and the only applicable legislation for such a scheme was the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995. It was argued that bypassing the framework of the 1995 Act and invoking the LARR for the policy rendered it colourable legislation.
It was also contended that a social impact assessment report was not prepared or published, nor were any gram panchayats or gram sabhas consulted as required under the LARR Act. “The respondents have acted in patent disregard to mandatory provisions of Sections 4 to 6 and 10 of the LARR, 2013,” the plea stated.