The Punjab and Haryana High Court has delivered a stinging rebuke to the Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP), formerly the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA), for its arbitrary and unjust approach to pricing land allotted to oustees. The court has explicitly barred the authority from charging escalated rates from individuals whose land was acquired for public projects.
Court Condemns "Arbitrary" and "Unjust" Pricing Policy
Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj, presiding over the case, strongly criticized the HSVP's practice of demanding current market rates from oustees for alternative plots allotted to them. The court found this policy to be fundamentally flawed and lacking a rational basis. The ruling came in response to a petition filed by Rajbir Singh and other residents whose land was acquired in 2005-2006 for the development of Sector 17 in Panchkula.
The petitioners had been offered alternative plots as part of the rehabilitation policy. However, the HSVP later demanded payments based on significantly higher rates established in 2013, rather than the prices prevailing at the time of the original acquisition. The court noted that this demand created an absurd situation where oustees were being penalized for delays caused by the authority itself.
A Victory for Land Oustees and a Precedent Against Injustice
The High Court's order provides immediate and substantial relief to the affected families. It has quashed the demand notices issued by HSVP that asked for the escalated amounts. Furthermore, the court has directed the HSVP to recalculate the charges using the allotment rates that were applicable in the year the land was originally acquired from the oustees.
This judgment underscores a critical principle of fairness in land acquisition matters. The court emphasized that individuals who surrender their land for public purpose cannot be subjected to financial exploitation by the acquiring body. The ruling sets a vital precedent, protecting the rights of oustees across Haryana from similar arbitrary financial demands by development authorities.
Broader Implications for Urban Development Authorities
The court's sharp criticism extends beyond this single case, casting a spotlight on the functioning of the town planning body. By highlighting the "arbitrary" nature of the pricing, the judgment calls for greater transparency and equity in the policies governing rehabilitation and resettlement.
This decision is expected to impact numerous similar cases where oustees have been burdened with unexpected and hefty bills for their rehabilitation plots. It sends a clear message to all urban development authorities that their policies must be just, reasonable, and cannot operate to the detriment of those who have already sacrificed their property for state-led development projects.
The court has mandated that the HSVP complete the recalculations and issue fresh, fair demand letters to the petitioners in accordance with its order, finally bringing a measure of justice to the long-suffering land oustees.
