The high court on Wednesday asked the Punjab government whether it had carried out the social and environmental impact assessment before notifying the land-pooling policy or not.
The court also asked the state government to spell out whether the policy --- that has raised the hackles of Opposition leaders and farmers --- had provisions for rehabilitation of landless labourers and others.
These questions were raised by the bench of justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and justice Deepak Manchanda, while the state’s advocate general Maninderjit Singh gave an undertaking that the policy would be kept on hold and no further steps would be taken till the next date of hearing. The matter will be taken up again on Thursday.
The petition was filed by Ludhiana resident Gurdeep Singh Gill who had challenged the policy, notified on June 4, stating that around 26,000 acres of land in the district had been notified for setting up of residential and commercial projects without carrying out the necessary environment and social impact assessment which is an essential prerequisite for acquisition of land under Sections 4 to 8 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Even the assessment as to whether it will serve the ‘public purpose’ for setting up residential and commercial complexes as set out in the Act of 2013 was not undertaken, he had alleged further underlining that a large number of public/private housing/commercial projects are already underway and are more than adequate to meet the existing and future needs of the public. Hence, the Act of 2013 is being circumvented and the policy is wholly arbitrary and irrational, the plea alleged. It was also argued that there is no provision for providing compensation at the time of acquisition and only an annual livelihood allowance of ₹50,000/- per acre would be paid but it would be too meagre for the sustenance of families of small and marginal farmers, who would be affected adversely. The policy is discriminatory against small landowners, he further claimed.
{{/usCountry}}Even the assessment as to whether it will serve the ‘public purpose’ for setting up residential and commercial complexes as set out in the Act of 2013 was not undertaken, he had alleged further underlining that a large number of public/private housing/commercial projects are already underway and are more than adequate to meet the existing and future needs of the public. Hence, the Act of 2013 is being circumvented and the policy is wholly arbitrary and irrational, the plea alleged. It was also argued that there is no provision for providing compensation at the time of acquisition and only an annual livelihood allowance of ₹50,000/- per acre would be paid but it would be too meagre for the sustenance of families of small and marginal farmers, who would be affected adversely. The policy is discriminatory against small landowners, he further claimed.
{{/usCountry}}The court while deferring hearing asked the AG to inform the court if the environmental impact assessment had been carried for which directions were issued by the Supreme Court in 2023 while observing that before permitting urban development, the environmental impact assessment study should be conducted.