Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram
© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
In focus
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has spelt out in detail why it stayed the Punjab government’s Land Pooling Policy, 2025, in its order passed on August 7 and released today. The Bench of Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Deepak Manchanda listed a series of legal and procedural shortcomings — from the absence of environmental and social impact studies to the lack of timelines, grievance redressal and budgetary clarity.
The court said it was “prima facie… of the view that the policy appears to have been notified in haste” without addressing key concerns. These included Social Impact Assessment (SIA), Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), fixed timelines for execution, and a grievance redressal mechanism — all of which, it said, “should have been addressed at the very outset… before its notification.”
No impact assessments before large-scale land takeover
The Bench noted that the State planned to “take over tens of thousands of acres of fertile land” without first conducting SIA or EIA, despite Supreme Court directives that environmental studies must precede urban development. It cited Resident’s Welfare Association vs UT of Chandigarh (2023), in which the apex court had urged governments to strike “a proper balance… between sustainable development and environmental protection” and to make EIA studies mandatory before permitting urban expansion.
Compulsory acquisition built into ‘voluntary’ scheme
While the government maintained the policy was “purely voluntary”, the court pointed to Clause 6 of the May 14 notification, which allowed land not offered under the pooling scheme to be acquired compulsorily under the 2013 land acquisition law. This, it held, brought the policy within the definition of a “project” under the Act, triggering the requirement for impact studies and other safeguards.
No provision for the landless
The order flagged the absence of any rehabilitation plan for landless labourers, artisans, MGNREGA workers and others dependent on the targeted land. “Payment of subsistence allowance has been provided to the land owners, but there is no provision for rehabilitation of those… dependent on the land,” it observed. The Bench also reminded that acquisition of multi-cropped land was barred under the 2013 law, except in exceptional circumstances.
No timelines, no grievance mechanism
The court said there were no prescribed timelines for key stages — voluntary participation, taking possession, starting or completing development, delivering developed land to owners, or paying subsistence allowances. It also found no grievance redressal framework or penalty provisions for delays and non-delivery.
Budgetary gap
Noting that the Amicus Curiae had estimated development costs at ₹1.25 crore per acre — about ₹10,000 crore for Ludhiana district alone — the Bench recorded that the State’s counsel had “no instructions” on whether any budgetary provision had been made.
Past delays under pooling policies
The judges referred to earlier instances where landowners surrendered plots under previous pooling schemes but waited years without receiving the promised developed land. In one case from Mohali, they noted, “developed plots have not been allotted even after ten years” and no development had started in the concerned sectors.
Fertile farmland at stake
Calling the land “amongst the most fertile in the State of Punjab”, the court said the acquisition could “impact the social milieu” and emphasised the need for careful evaluation before proceeding.
Stay to prevent creation of rights
The policy notified on May 14 and June 4, and amended on July 25, was stayed “lest any rights are created”, with the matter to be taken up again on September 10. The State has been asked to address all concerns and complete its reply before that date.
Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram
