High Court stays Punjab Land Pooling Policy, gives state 4 weeks to respond

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Thursday stayed the 'Punjab Land Pooling Policy' after the State of Punjab refused to withdraw it. After hearing detailed arguments for almost two hours, the Bench of Justice Anupinder Grewal and Justice Deepak Manchanda also gave the State four weeks’ time.

“We will stay the policy and give you time to address the concerns,” the Bench asserted, before parting with the case. At the onset, the court reiterated its concerns regarding the lack of provision for rehabilitation of landless labourers and others dependent on land for their sustenance. The court also questioned the government for not conducting the compulsory Social Impact Assessment before identifying the land to be acquired.

Appearing before the Bench, Advocate-General Maninderjit Singh Bedi and senior advocate Gurminder Singh submitted that the policy was voluntary in nature. As a part of the process, land suitable for the development project was identified, and the corresponding khasra numbers were advertised to invite expressions of willingness from the landowners. “Only if the landowners consent, the land is acquired in exchange for developed houses,” the Bench was told.

Gurminder Singh added the policy aimed at “curbing the mushrooming of illegal colonies in Punjab, lest the State turned into a slum”, he added. 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 Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act).

The Bench, during the course of hearing, was also told that the projects would not be handed over to any private builders for development. Senior advocate and amicus curiae in the case Shailendra Jain contended that carrying out the Social Impact Assessment before identifying the land was not only important but also mandatory in accordance with the Supreme Court’s guidelines. Not carrying the assessment under the policy would create an “unreasonable classification” between the 2013 Act and the policy.

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 counsel Gurjeet Singh Gill, Manan Kheterpal, Manat Kaur, Rahul Jadge and Rajat Verma also 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.