In a significant pronouncement on land acquisition and rehabilitation, the Supreme Court has cautioned state governments against adopting “land-for-land” policies except in the rarest of rare cases. The bench, comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, emphasized that rehabilitation through alternative land allotment should not become a standard or populist response to land acquisition, and underscored that monetary compensation under the law generally suffices unless exceptional circumstances justify deviation.
The judgment, delivered on July 14, arose from a batch of appeals filed by the Estate Officer of the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) and others challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s 2016 ruling. The High Court had upheld trial court decrees in favour of landowners displaced due to acquisition in the 1990s, holding them entitled to allotment under Haryana’s 2016 Rehabilitation Policy rather than the older, more concessional 1992 scheme. The Supreme Court’s 88-page verdict called Haryana’s earlier approach to land acquisition “very unusual” and warned against policy decisions aimed at appeasement that could ultimately complicate governance and lead to prolonged litigation.
The case revolved around land acquired by the Haryana government for public purposes decades ago. While compensation had been awarded under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the state also extended an offer of alternative residential plots under its 1992 rehabilitation scheme. However, many affected landowners did not adhere to procedural requirements, such as applying in the prescribed format or depositing earnest money. Years later often after delays of 14 to 20 years they filed civil suits under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act seeking mandatory allotment of plots at 1992 rates.
The Supreme Court held that such claims were not sustainable in law, particularly given the extensive delay which exceeded the statutory limitation period of three years under the Limitation Act, 1963. It observed that the plea of deprivation of the right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution, as raised by the landowners, could not be sustained in the context of land acquisition where due monetary compensation had already been provided. The Court made it clear that while fairness and equity are important considerations in rehabilitation, they cannot override statutory timelines and policy frameworks.
Despite these observations, the Court exercised its equitable jurisdiction to grant limited relief. It held that the 2016 policy, as revised in 2018, would govern the matter, and permitted the displaced landowners to apply for plots under that scheme within four weeks. The Court clarified that the application process must comply with the policy’s conditions, including the required deposit, and that eligibility would be determined by the competent authority. Recognizing that some claimants may be illiterate or lack access to online systems, the Court allowed submissions through offline applications as well.
Further, the bench directed the Haryana government and HUDA to ensure that land mafias or cartels do not misuse the policy for speculative gain. It reiterated that land-for-land schemes should not be routinely floated and must be guided by humanitarian considerations rather than administrative convenience or political populism. The decision serves as a precedent-setting caution to states contemplating similar rehabilitation frameworks, reaffirming that statutory compensation is ordinarily sufficient and that exceptions must be narrowly tailored.
