No Discrimination, Development in Chandigarh Periphery Reserved for State Only: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Land Acquisition
In a significant verdict, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition by The Tribune Employees and Friends Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd., which challenged the government’s acquisition of land. The court affirmed that development activities in the periphery of Chandigarh are reserved exclusively for the government or its agencies.
Legal Background and Petition:
The petitioner sought to quash the order dated October 21, 2014, which denied the release of land from acquisition and quash notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. They contended discrimination in not releasing their acquired land compared to other similarly situated entities and argued that the denial of land release ousted their legitimate expectation of developing a housing colony.
Facts and Legal Issues:
The land in question, part of the Mansa Devi Urban Complex, falls within a zone where all developments are to be undertaken by the State as per policy. The petitioner had previously attempted to secure licenses for development, which were denied due to this policy, and the decisions remained unchallenged.
Court’s Assessment:
Legitimacy of Acquisition Process: The court found the acquisition notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act to be valid, noting the state’s priority in public development over private plans.
Discrimination Claims: The court rejected claims of discrimination and noted that other societies’ land releases were due to completed developmental activities by the government, which did not equate to a release applicable to the petitioner.
Legitimate Expectation and Public Policy: The court held that the petitioner’s expectation did not override public interest and policy considerations favoring state-controlled development. It emphasized that legitimate expectations must align with broader public benefits and cannot contravene established policies.
Judicial Review and Policy Decisions: Upholding the policy restricting development to government agencies, the court found no arbitrariness in the rejection of the petitioner’s claims. It asserted that decisions were made in the interest of planned urban development and environmental considerations near Sukhna Lake.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the petition, affirming the High Powered Committee’s decision and the validity of the acquisition notifications. It stated that the development policy in Chandigarh’s periphery aimed to serve a larger public interest, which outweighs any individual expectations for development.
Date of Decision: April 30, 2024
The Tribune Employees and Friends Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and others
