The Punjab and Haryana high court (HC) has stayed land acquisition proceedings for an industrial park, planned over 300 acres in Mohali’s Sectors 101 and 103. The state government had initiated the process in Dhurali and Saneta villages in March this year.
The HC bench of justice JS Puri and justice PS Chauhan acted on the pleas from villagers who had challenged acquisition proceedings. “We are of the considered view that prima facie the state has not adhered to the statutory provisions contained in Section 10 and Section 15 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013,” the court observed deferring the hearing for October 27 and asking the state government to put in abeyance the acquisition proceedings.
Law against acquiring irrigated, cropped land
The court observed that an embargo has been created under sub-section (1) of Section 10 which states that when the land is an irrigated multi-cropped land, then, it shall not be acquired. Acquisition in such cases can only be done in exceptional circumstances.
The court referred to the social impact assessment for land acquisition that said the project-affected area of Sector 101 comprises predominantly productive agricultural land, supported by tubewell irrigation, horticulture, dairy activities, and household-based livelihoods, indicating high economic dependence on land. The acquisition involves loss of high-value productive assets, including orchards, 63 fruit-bearing trees, 112 non-fruit trees, 14 tubewells, and two dairy farms, indicating impacts on recurring and future income streams.
{{/usCountry}}The court referred to the social impact assessment for land acquisition that said the project-affected area of Sector 101 comprises predominantly productive agricultural land, supported by tubewell irrigation, horticulture, dairy activities, and household-based livelihoods, indicating high economic dependence on land. The acquisition involves loss of high-value productive assets, including orchards, 63 fruit-bearing trees, 112 non-fruit trees, 14 tubewells, and two dairy farms, indicating impacts on recurring and future income streams.
{{/usCountry}}It further provides that 72 families are directly and indirectly affected.
It further provides that 72 families are directly and indirectly affected. “Once it is established as per the aforesaid report that the land which is sought to be acquired is a predominantly irrigated land and impact is also very high in a negative direction, then, prima facie sub-section (1) of Section 10 would come into operation,” it said.
Govt couldn’t place on record exceptional circumstances
“The exception contemplated under sub-section (2) would operate only upon fulfilment of the conditions for bringing the case within the ambit of exceptional circumstance and establishing that the acquisition is demonstrably a last resort,” it said.
The court said that the government has not been able to produce any document or place on record any decision to demonstrate that the said land qualifies for the exception to be made.
It also took note of assertions from the petitioners’ advocate Naresh Kaushal that as mandated in Section 15 of the law, pertaining to hearing of objections, the petitioners were never heard despite having filed the statutory objections nor any decision was conveyed to them.