High court stays land acquisition for 300 acre industrial park: A practical reader guide

High court stays land acquisition for 300 acre industrial park: A practical reader guide

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. Acquisition in such cases can only be done in exceptional circumstances. 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. 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. 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.

“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. 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.