[Eminent Domain] State Can Acquire Land In Militarized Zone But Can't Compromise National Security: Punjab & Haryana HC
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has refused to interfere in the land acquisition done by the State authorities directing that if it falls within the milititarized zone then it should be kept free from construction and "develop as an open green area", "without compromising the national security."A plea challenging the land acquisition was filed, contending that the land falls within...
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has refused to interfere in the land acquisition done by the State authorities directing that if it falls within the milititarized zone then it should be kept free from construction and "develop as an open green area", "without compromising the national security."
A plea challenging the land acquisition was filed, contending that the land falls within a militarized zone and, therefore, cannot be acquired. However, the Court rejected the petition and imposed a cost of Rs.50,000 for filing frivolous petition.
A division bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Kuldeep Tiwari said, "...direction(s) is made upon the acquiring authority that the acquired lands, if they are falling within the militarized zone or restricted zones, thereby they shall be kept free from all types of construction(s) and rather they shall be developed as an open green area but without compromising with the national security and safety."
These observations were made while hearing a batch of petitions seeking quashing of the land acquisition notification.
One of the petitions challenged the acquisition on the basis of nature of the land acquired. It was contended the land falls in the militarized zone and hence it cannot be acquired as it is governed by the the Defence Act.
Considering the submissions, the Court referred to its decision in Krishan Chand Jain and Others Versus State of Haryana and Ors [CWP-13543-1990], in which it was held that the provisions of 'the Defence Act', are required to be assigned over-riding effect upon local laws or vis-a-vis executive policies, and that other private interests are required to be made subordinate or subservient to the national security interests as embedded in the Defence Act.
Clarifying the above, the Court said though the Defence Act is given overriding effect over the local laws, executive policies, but it did not hold that the power of the acquiring authorities under the Land Acquisition Act,1984 is subject to the Defence Act.
The Court further added that if a private individual has raised a construction on "militralized zone" or "sensitive zone" then "he would invite the wrath of the apposite statutory provisions as embodied in 'the Defence Act'".Such construction is liable to be demolished so that the green area is maintained after the acquisition without compromising the national security, it said.
In the light of the above the Court dismissed the plea challenging the acquisition and opined that there is "no merit" in the writ petitions, the same being completely frivolous, are required to be dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 223
Case Title: LT. COL. INDER SINGH KALAAN (DECEASED) THROUGH LRs. AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.