The Punjab And Haryana High Court Invalidates A Clause In The Land Acquisition Act That The Haryana Assembly Added To Denote Land
Last Updated on December 28, 2024 by Arti Kumari
The Haryana assembly added Section 101A to the Right to Fair Compensation Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act of 2013, however the Punjab & Haryana High Court has declared it unconstitutional.
This clause provided the state government the authority to denotify land purchased under the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 in the event that the public use for which it was purchased is no longer feasible or required.
It was added by a law that the Haryana legislature enacted in 2018.
The State Government, one of the litigants, could not have pursued such a course of action, according to Justices G.S. Sandhawalia and Harpreet Kaur Jeevan. As a result, the rule of law has been broken, and the latitude the State took by introducing the aforementioned provisions can never be granted to a private litigant. The entire exercise is a flagrant breach of the separation of powers, and because it intrudes on the scope of Article 14 of the Constitution, it is an infringement on the legal system.
Justice G.S. Sandhawalia put it thus way in a ruling: “The legislature has no right to take a decision and become an adjudicatory forum, taking over the power of the courts.”
The Court further stated that it undermines the fundamental framework of the Constitution and, when combined with the egregious, obvious violation of Article 14 and 300A of the Constitution, would undermine the rule of law and leave a private litigant with a decree with nothing more than a piece of paper.
The 2013 Land Acquisition Act was created to guarantee that farmers who ceded their land would profit from progressive development.
After reviewing the Land Acquisition Act’s Statements of Objects and Reasons, the Court concluded that the amendment’s main goal was to provide a fresh perspective on the problem of land acquisition for development in order to guarantee that farmers who give up their lands can benefit from progressive development.
According to the Court, the proactive approach for landowners’ advantage was ostensibly excluded, and the State was granted sole authority to determine whether the matter was vital or viable without granting the landowners any rights. It also supports the factum of the claim that it is an obviously arbitrary clause.
“The protection of the 1894 Act’s gains is the main goal. Everything provided by the Central Act is nullified by the State amendment under Section 101A. Therefore, the two provisions are fundamentally incompatible and cannot coexist in any way.
It emphasized that while Section 101A included new terms referring to unviable or non-essential land, Section 101 of the Principal Act also discusses land that remains unused and may be returned.
In contrast, Section 107 gives the State the authority to enact any law that enhances or adds to the entitlements listed under the Act, which confer higher compensation than is payable under the Act or making provisions for rehabilitation and resettlement, which is more beneficial, the Court said, adding that the provisions of the 2013 Act further demonstrate that the said Act is to be in addition to and not in derogation with any other law currently in effect.
By introducing a provision that deviates from the Central Act, the State is, according to the Court, doing precisely the opposite through the amendment.
As a result, the Court ruled that the alteration (Section 101A) was clearly arbitrary, which is a valid reason to invalidate the law. As a result, the Court found Section 101A of the State Act to be ultra vires.
Case Title: State of Haryana and another v. Nishabar Singh and others
