Come out with suitable compensation policy for land owners:SC

“We think if the state formulates a reasonable compensation policy,then these type of disputes would not arise. We are frequently witnessing these type of problems.

Why don’t you come out with a proper compensation policy for the land owners”? the bench told Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra.

The counsel agreed with the suggestion that a proper compensation policy ought to be set up to avert such disputes. He said the government was already in the process of coming out with a suitable mechanism to deal with the issue.

Bhatta Parasul in Uttar Pradesh was in the news recently over alleged arbitary land acquistion by Mayawati government even as the Singur and Nandigram land acquisition disputes were considered to be a prime factor for the recent rout of the CPM-led Left Front government in West Bengal.

The apex court made the remarks while granting time to Delhi government to explore a compromise with certain land owners at Harsh Vihar whose 80 acres were acquired for the ostensible purpose of setting up a power grid by Delhi Transco for the 2010 Commonwealth Games.

Darshan Lal Nagpal and other owners had moved the apex court after the Delhi High Court upheld the acquistion of their land by the government.

The bench ticked off the government for invoking the urgency clause under Section 17 provided under the Land Acquistion Act for acquiring the land without even extending a formal hearing to the aggrieved land owners.

“What was the urgency involved?” the bench said pointing out that while the actual proposal for acquiring the land was made as early as in 2005,the land was actually acquired in October 2009.

Under Section 5A of the Act the Government has to give a mandatory hearing to the aggrieved land owners before acquiring the land. However,in emergency cases by resorting to Section17,the government can acquire the land even without extending any hearing to the owners.

Hence,it asked the Additional Solicitor General to work out a compromise formula with the land owners for paying them suitable compensation and posted the matter for further hearing to next Monday.

However,the apex court permitted the government to lay the necessary road on the acquired land for transporting the material to the grid,subject to the condition that it would be dismantled if the final verdict goes against the administration.

During the hearing,the bench referred to the apex court’s recent judgement that property was a Constitutional right which the government cannot deprive a person of in an arbitary manner.

In the judgement,the apex court had held that courts should view with “suspicion” the action of the government in acquiring land for private parties in the name of urgency.

The apex court had quashed the acquisition of 205 hectares of agricultural land in Uttar Pradesh’s Gautam Budh Nagar by the state on behalf of the Greater NOIDA Industrial Development Authority for business enterpreneurs in March 2008.

The land owners had challenged the acquistion on the ground that the government invoked Section Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act empowering it to dispense with the process of inviting objections from the landowners as mandated under Section 5A of the legislation.

The high court had dismissed the land owners’ plea,after which they appealed in the apex court.

Upholding the landowners plea,the apex court said if land is acquired for the benefit of private persons,the court should view the invoking of Section 17(1) and/or 17(4) with suspicion and carefully scrutinize the relevant record before adjudicating on the legality of such acquisition.

“Though,in exercise of the power of eminent domain,the government can acquire private property for public purpose,it must be remembered that compulsory taking of one’s property is a serious matter.

“If the property belongs to economically disadvantaged segment of the society or people suffering from other handicaps,then the court is not only entitled but is duty bound to scrutinize the action/decision of the state with greater vigilance,care and circumspection keeping in view the fact that the land owner is likely to become landless and deprived of the only source of his livelihood and/or shelter,” the bench said.