High Court Upholds Haryana Govt's Land Acquisition In NCR Region, Says NCR Act Not Violation Of Land Acquisition Act

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has upheld the Land acquisition of Haryana Government in National Capital Region (NCR) observing that Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and National Capital Region Planning Board Act (NCRPB Act) both serve different purposes and do not override each other.

According to NCRPB Act no development project or scheme can be implemented within the NCR without the prior approval of a sub-regional plan or master plan from the NCRPB.

 Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri said, "when different fields are occupied by the Acts (supra), besides when in neither of the (supra) Acts, there exists any provision(s) wherebys either the Act of 1985 or the Act of 1894, thus becomes assigned predominance. As such, when both (supra) statutes effectively thus occupy different fields, and are not given preponderance over each other. Resultantly, the Act of 1894 cannot succumb to the pressure of the Act of 1985."

The Court was hearing plea filed by Rajbir SIngh, who challenged the land acquisition proceedings done by HSVP (Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaranin) in Village Para, Rohtak, intended for developing a Sector of Haryana's Rohtak.

It was argued that the acquisition is illegal because it violates the National Capital Region Planning Board Act, 1985, since Rohtak is part of the NCR and the required approval from the NCR Planning Board for a sub-regional or master plan was never obtained.

Reliance was placed on a RTI reply confirmed no such plan was approved. Despite this, the Haryana authority (HSVP) proceeded with land acquisition, which the petitioner claims makes the acquisition invalid, it added.

After examining the submission the Court noted that the NCRPB Act is about planned regional development and the land acquisition is for the purpose of public use.

"The field occupied by the Act of 1985, rather is completely different from the field occupied by the Act of 1894, inasmuch as, the Act of 1985, is rather for planned development, whereas, the field occupied by the Act of 1894, is for making acquisition(s) through the employment of the power of eminent domain, wherebys compensation becomes assessed thereunders whereafters the acquired land becomes employed for the public purpose concerned," said the Court.

Since both the laws serve different purposes and do not override each other, the Court held that the land acquisition in Sector 6, Rohtak under the Land Acquisition Act is valid.

Consequently, the plea was dismissed.

Mr. Mohit Rathee, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. A.G., Haryana with Ms. Svaneel Jaswal, Addl. A.G. Haryana, Mr. P.P. Chahar, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Gaurav Bansal, DAG, Haryana and Mr. Karan Jindal, Assistant A.G. Haryana.

Title: RAJBIR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Click here to read/download the order