‘No profiteering at the cost of farmer’

The Supreme Court has declared land a “scarce natural resource” and forbidden the government from using its powers of compulsory land acquisition to strip poor farmers of their livelihood only to transfer such land to private builders to feed their business interests.

What has the court said?

·       Land, acquired in the name of residential or commercial projects, should revert to its rightful owner — the farmer — in case the project does not take off. No third party has any rights on the land.

·   There is no objection to acquisition of land for a compelling public purpose or regulated development of colonies, but release of land to a builder who comes into the picture after acquisition notification tantamounts to acquisition for a private purpose.

·       It amounts to transfer of resources of the poor for the benefit of the rich. It amounts to permitting profiteering at the cost of livelihood and existence of a farmer.

·       If the law allows the State to take land for housing needs, the State itself has to keep the title or dispose of land consistent with Article 14 after completion of acquisition. If after initiation of acquisition, process is not to be completed, land must revert to the owner and not to anyone else directly or indirectly.

Background:

These observations were made by the court during a landmark ruling which quashed the transfer of 280 acres of land acquired by Haryana government from farmers in Rohtak to a private builder in 2006 for developing a residential colony.

·    In 2002, the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) proposed to acquire around 850 acres of land in Rohtak. However, in April 2003, only 441 acres were acquired. The state later released about 280 acres of the acquired land to Uddar Gagan Properties Limited in June 2006.