Month on, HC disposes of pleas against Punjab Land Pooling Policy as infructuous

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has disposed of a bunch of petitions challenging the Punjab Government’s Land Pooling Policy-2025, after being informed that the State had withdrawn the policy through a notification dated August 14.

Taking on record the withdrawal, the Division Bench of Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Deepak Manchanda asserted that the petitioners had challenged the Land Pooling Policy-2025 notified on May 14, June 4 and subsequently amended on July 25.

“The counsel for the respondents submits that the State of Punjab had decided to withdraw the Land Pooling Policy dated June 4 vide notification dated August 14,” the court observed while taking on record the notification.

Disposing of the petitions as infructuous, the Bench recorded its appreciation for the assistance of senior advocate Shailendra Jain appointed earlier as the amicus curiae.

Coming down strongly on Punjab’s Land Pooling Policy-2025, the High Court in August had asserted 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 Bench had asserted while staying the policy on August 7 to prevent creation of rights under it.

In its detailed order, the Bench also 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 had 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 had 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 had also taken 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.”