Fair compensation legal, but not rehabilitation: Supreme Court's rare verdict in land acquisition cases
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court ruled it illegal for state governments to provide rehabilitation in land acquisition cases. A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan pointed out that the Constitution guarantees fair compensation but not any alternative land or rehabilitation.
Rehabilitation can be provided if it is mentioned in law and policy. The court rejected the landowners' argument, citing rehabilitation or alternative land as a legal right. As part of appeasing the landowners, state governments will unnecessarily formulate such schemes and jump into difficulties. This will lead to unnecessary litigation. The Supreme Court also observed that it should be implemented only in cases where humanitarian considerations are required.
The Supreme Court's stance is noteworthy in the context of land acquisition disputes related to road and rail development in Kerala. The verdict is in a case related to the 1990 land acquisition by the Haryana Urban Development Authority. The land owners approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court, citing that rehabilitation was promised but not implemented, and obtained a favourable verdict. The Haryana Urban Development Authority then approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court quashed the High Court order. The land owners cannot demand land in return as per the authority's 1992 rehabilitation policy. They were also allowed to demand it as per the revised policy of 2016.
- Destitute individuals may be resettled if they lose their place of residence or livelihood. They should show proof that the land taken was formerly their source of survival and livelihood.
- Only in rare cases can the government, in addition to providing compensation to the displaced, devise a resettlement plan.