Land Pooling Policy notified in haste; lacks social, environmental impact studies: HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has come down strongly on Punjab’s Land Pooling Policy-2025. The court asserts that the state proposed to take over “tens of thousands of acres of fertile land” for proposed development work without carrying out social or environmental impact assessment studies. “We are, prima facie, of the view that the policy appears to have been notified in haste and all concerns, including social impact assessment, environmental impact assessment, timelines, and redressal grievance mechanism should have been addressed at the very outset in the policy before its notification,” the division bench of Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Deepak Manchanda asserted. This was while staying the policy on August 7 to prevent creation of rights under it.

In its detailed order now available, the bench observed that the state’s stand in the matter was that the assessments would be carried out later, once it had definite information about the number of landowners opting for the scheme. But the bench asserted the Supreme Court had held in several cases that the state ought to carry out an environmental impact assessment before permitting urban development,

Referring to the nature of the land involved, the bench asserted: “We may hasten to add that the land which is sought to be acquired is amongst the most fertile land in the state of Punjab and it is possible that it may impact the social milieu. As noted in an earlier order, the Land Acquisition Act-2013 bars the acquisition of multi-cropped land and such acquisition is permissible only in exceptional circumstances.

The bench asserted it was also apparent that “no timelines have been prescribed nor any mechanism has been provided that will address the grievances of the affected persons”. The policy provided subsistence allowance to the landowners, but “there is no provision for rehabilitation of those landless labourers, artisans and others who are dependent on the land”.

The bench also took note of the submission that the state’s statutory bodies would themselves develop the land. But “no budgetary provisions appear to have been made nor anything has been put forth before this court to indicate that the state has adequate resources to finance the development project under the policy”.

The court further noted amicus curiae Shailendra Jain’s submissions that budget of about Rs 10,000 crore would have to be allocated for development in one district alone. The bench asserted that it had come across several instances where the owners had surrendered their land to the state development authority under an earlier land pooling policy, but the developed plots had not been allotted even after a decade.

Quoting one such case, the bench asserted: “One such petition filed in 2018 was listed before us today itself and it was the contention of counsel for the petitioner that although his land had been acquired under the land pooling policy, and the ‘award’ was announced on June 10, 2015, the developed plot had not been allotted to him till date. He also stated that the development works had not even started in Sectors 90 and 91, Mohali, by GMADA as on date.”

Before paring with the case, the bench fixed September 10 as the next date of hearing in the case while making it clear that the state and other respondents could file a reply.