M A I N   N E W S

Follow procedure while acquiring individuals’ properties, SC to states
R Sedhuraman
Legal Correspondent

In the present case, the Bench noted that the affected farmer, Raghbir Singh Sehrawat, was shown as dead on the relevant documents, while his wife’s signature had been forged and she was described as a widow. Further, it was wrongly contended that the state had taken physical possession of the land and handed it over to the Haryana State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (HSIIDC) on November 28, 2008, while village records showed that Sehrawat was still cultivating the land and there was a standing crop at the relevant time.

“Before acquiring private land, the state and/or its agencies/instrumentalities should, as far as possible, use land belonging to the state for the specified public purpose. If the acquisition of private land becomes absolutely necessary, then too, the concerned authorities must strictly comply with the relevant statutory provisions and the rules of natural justice,” the Bench noted in the 25-page verdict, written by Justice Singhvi.

The Bench noted that several state governments and their functionaries were adopting a “very casual approach” in dealing with matters relating to the acquisition of land in general and “the rural areas in particular and in a large number of cases” the acquisitions had been quashed by the judiciary for not following the mandatory procedure.

“It is difficult, if not impossible, to appreciate as to why the state and its instrumentalities resort to massive acquisition of land and that too without complying with the mandate of the statute,” the SC said.

While diversion of farm land in the name of planned development or industrial growth would seriously affect the availability of food in future, depriving people of their only assets like a small house or a small industrial unit would amount to denying them of a “semblance of dignity” they have been struggling for, the apex court observed.

The owners, whose land was being acquired, should be given a chance to raise all sorts of objections, either by pointing out that the land was not suitable for the proposed purpose or by suggesting that an alternative piece of land was available or through other means.

“In other words, the recommendations made by the Collector must reflect objective application of mind to the objections filed by the landowners and other interested persons,” the Bench clarified.

The apex court also noted that since independence, the administrative apparatus of the State had neither invested enough in the rural areas nor educated and empowered the farmers to adopt alternative sources of livelihood.

“It also appears that the concerned authorities are totally unmindful of the plight of those sections of the society, who are deprived of their only asset like small house, small industrial unit etc. They do not realise that having one’s own house is lifetime dream of majority of population of this country,” they observed.