Back
2012 Supreme(P&H) 560
2012(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) (DB) 1550
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
[DIVISION BENCH]
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal
L.P.A.No.2096 of 2011 & other connected cases
Haryana Urban Development Authority & Ors.
v.
Sandeep & Ors.
{Decided on 25/04/2012}
For the Appellants:Mr. Neeraj Jain, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Siddharth Batra, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate.
Headnote:Land Acquisition--Rehabilitation Policy--Allotment of Plot to oustees--Directions issued
Land Acquisition Act 1894, S.4&6--Rehabilitation Policy--Allotment of Plot to oustees--Directions issued;
(i) That date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is relevant to determine the eligibility of a land-owner for allotment of a residential plot, even if the acquisition is for the purposes of commercial, industrial or institutional;
(ii) That the entitlement of the size of the plot and the procedure for allotment shall be as on the date of allotment in pursuance of an advertisement issued inviting application from the oustees;
(iii) That the HUDA or such other authority can reserve plots up to 50% of the total plots available for all reserved categories including that of oustees. As to what extent there would be reservation for the oustees, is required to be decided by the State Government and/or by HUDA or any other authority, who is entitled to acquire land;
(iv) That the oustees are entitled to apply for allotment of plot along-with earnest money in pursuance of public advertisement issued may be inviting applications from the general public and the oustees through one advertisement--If an oustee is not successful, he/she can apply again and again till such time, the plots are available for the oustees in the sector for which land was acquired for residential/commercial purposes or in the adjoining sector, if the land acquired was for institutional and industrial purposes etc--The plots to the oustees shall be allotted only by public advertisement and not on the basis of any application submitted by an oustee;
(v) That the price to be charged from an allottee shall be the price mentioned in the public advertisement in pursuance of which, the plot is allotted and not when the sector is floated for sale for the first time;
(vi) That the State Government or the acquiring authority shall not advertise any residential plot for sale without conducting an exercise in respect of plots ear-marked for reserved categories and after identification of the plots available for the oustees in each sector--Thereafter, the State Government or the acquiring authority shall publish an advertisement inviting applications from such oustees to apply for allotment of plots in accordance with law: and
(vii) If in any sector, more than 50% plots have been allotted by way of reservation including to the oustees, then such allotment shall not be cancelled or reviewed in view of the judgment of this court.
Mr. Hemant Gupta, J.: - This order shall dispose of LPA No.2096 of 2011 preferred under Clause X of the Letters Patent arising out of an order passed by the learned Single Judge of this court on 16.05.2011 in respect of the rights of oustees for allotment of plots, as part of Rehabilitation & Resettlement Scheme as well as other connected matters, list of which is appended as Annexure – A.
2. Large number of writ petitions were taken up for hearing by the learned Single Judge and decided by common order. Even before this Court, large number of writ petitions are listed for hearing raising one or the other questions arising out of the Rehabilitation & Resettlement Policies framed by Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short ‘the HUDA’) and/or by the State Government from time to time. The arguments have been heard in respect of all the issues arising out of the policies so framed. Such issues are being dealt with in the present appeal though such questions does not arise out of the facts of the present appeal. The findings recorded herein would be relevant for most of the writ petitions heard along with the present appeal.
3. The question of allotment of the plots to the oustees, came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. Vs. Smt. Pista Devi & others AIR 1986 SC 2025, wherein the Hon’ble Court was considering the acquisition of land by Meerut Development Authority. The Court directed that where large tracts of land for the purposes of land development in urban areas is acquired, the developing authority should provide a house or shop site of reasonable size on reasonable terms to each of the expropriated persons, who have no houses or shops/buildings in the urban area in question. The said direction was issued in view of the provisions of Section 21(2) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957, which contemplates settlement of those land-owners, whose land has been acquired. Various facets of such directions have come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as by the High Courts including this Court earlier.
4. In State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan & another (2011) 7 SCC 639, the Hon’ble Supreme Court negated the argument that in case of land acquisition, the plea of deprivation of right to livelihood under Article 21 is sustainable. It was held to the following effect:
“26. It is desirable for the authority concerned to ensure that as far as practicable persons who had been living and carrying on business or other activity on the land acquired, if they so desire, and are willing to purchase and comply with any requirement of the authority or the local body, be given a piece of land on the terms settled with due regard to the price at which the land has been acquired from them. However, the State Government cannot be compelled to provide alternate accommodation to the oustees and it is for the authority concerned to consider the desirability and feasibility of providing alternative land considering the facts and circumstances of each case.
27. In certain cases, the oustees are entitled to rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is meant only for those persons who have been rendered destitute because of a loss of residence or livelihood as a consequence of land acquisition. The authorities must explore the avenues of rehabilitation by way of employment, housing, investment opportunities, and identification of alternative lands.
“10. … A blinkered vision of development, complete apathy towards those who are highly adversely affected by the development process and a cynical unconcern for the enforcement of the laws lead to a situation where the rights and benefits promised and guaranteed under the Constitution hardly ever reach the most marginalised citizens.” (Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Mathias Oram (2010) 11 SCC 269)
For people whose lives and livelihoods are intrinsically connected to the land, the economic and cultural shift to a market economy can be traum
