Punjab & Haryana HC Strikes Down Provision To Denotify Land Inserted By Haryana Assembly In Land Acquisition Act

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has struck down Section 101A inserted by Haryana assembly in the Right to Fair Compensation Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013.

This provision gave state government the power to denotify a land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 if the public purpose for which the land was acquired becomes unviable or unnecessary.

It was inserted through an amendment passed by the Haryana legislature in 2018.

Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Harpreet Kaur Jeevan said, "such a course of action could not have been resorted to by the State Government, who is one of the litigants and, thus, the rule of law has been violated and latitude which has been taken by the State by introducing the said provisions, can never be given to a private litigant. The whole exercise is gross violation of separation of powers and the dimension of Article 14 of the Constitution creeps in and therefore, it is an incursion in the judicial process."

In a judgement authored by Justice G.S. Sandhawalia it was stated that, "The legislature has no right to take a decision and become an adjudicatory forum, taking over the power of the Courts."

It militates against the basic structure of the Constitution and it is coupled together with the flagrant, manifest violation of Article 14 and 300A of the Constitution and if it is permitted to be done by the State, the rule of law would suffer and a private litigant who has a decree would be left with a piece of paper, the Court added that.

Purpose Of 2013 Land Acquisition Act Was To Ensure Farmers Who Part With Their Land Are Benefitted Of Progressive Development

Perusing the Statements of Objects and Reasons of the Land Acquisition Act, the Court said that the whole purpose of the amendment was to give a new approach to the issue of land acquisition for development purposes, with a view to ensure that the farmers who part with their lands are enabled to share the benefits of progressive development.

The Court said that the proactive approach as such for the benefits of landowners apparently was left out and the State being given exclusive right to decide the issue of essentiality or viability without giving any right to the landowners. It further facilitates the factum of the argument that it amounts to a manifestly arbitrary provision.

"The whole purpose as such is to protect the acquisitions of 1894 Act. The State amendment under Section 101A undoes everything what the Central Act provides. Thus, there is a fundamental incompatibility between the two provisions and in no manner can they co- exist."

It highlighted that the Section 101 of the Principal Act also talks about the land remaining unutilized and it can be returned whereas under Section 101A, new terminology is unviable or non-essential which had been introduced.

The Court said that the provisions of 2013 Act further go on to show that the said Act is to be in addition to and not in derogation with any other law for the time being in force, if reference is made to Section 103 whereas, under Section 107, it provides the State power to enact any law to enhance or add to the entitlements enumerated under the Act, which confer higher compensation than payable under the Act or making provisions for rehabilitation and resettlement, which is more beneficial under the Act.

The Court opined that the State, thus, by virtue of the amendment, is doing exactly the opposite by bringing in a provision which is in derogation of the Central Act

Consequently, the Court held that, the amendment (Section 101A) is manifestly arbitrary action, which is a good ground to strike down the Legislation and resultantly, struck down Section 101A of the State Act and declared it ultra vires.

Title: State of Haryana and another v. Nishabar Singh and others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 430

Click here to read/download the order