New Delhi: In a pivotal ruling that defines the scope of rehabilitation entitlements for displaced landowners, the Supreme Court of India has clarified that the right to rehabilitation is not an automatic legal entitlement under every land acquisition. The court held that rehabilitation measures are mandatory only for individuals who lose their residence or means of livelihood as a direct consequence of the acquisition.
A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan delivered the verdict, emphasizing that while fair monetary compensation is a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution, the claim for additional benefits like alternative land or housing cannot be claimed as a matter of right by all oustees.
Focus on ‘Destitute’ Status
The judgment, pronounced in the case of Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority And Ors. v. Nirmala Devi, draws a sharp distinction between a simple loss of land and the comprehensive loss of a source of income or shelter.
The Bench observed that rehabilitation schemes should primarily be meant for those who are “rendered destitute” because their lives and livelihood were “intrinsically connected to the land.” This typically includes rural farmers or families dependent on subsistence agriculture, or those who have lost their sole residence.
The court explicitly rejected the argument that landowners could invoke the fundamental ‘Right to Livelihood’ under Article 21 of the Constitution to seek alternate land as a legal entitlement in every case of acquisition.
Caution Against Populist Schemes
The Supreme Court used the protracted nature of the case, which stemmed from a land acquisition in Haryana dating back to the early 1990s, as an “eye opener” for state governments across the country.
The court cautioned against “populist or appeasement-driven rehabilitation schemes” that are sometimes floated by governments. Such schemes, the court noted, often complicate the acquisition process, invite unnecessary litigation, and place undue administrative burdens on development authorities.
“It is not necessary that in all cases, over and above compensation in terms of money, rehabilitation of the property owners is a must,” the Bench stated, adding that any beneficial measures must be guided solely by “humanitarian considerations of fairness and equity.”
Monetary Compensation Remains Primary Right
The ruling reinforces the principle that when land is acquired for public purposes, the affected person is primarily entitled to appropriate and fair monetary compensation in accordance with the settled principles of law, particularly under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARR Act).
The judgment further noted that rehabilitation benefits must be applied within the boundaries of the relevant policy in force at the time of the possession takeover. The court, in this specific case, mandated that the landowners could only seek benefits under the more recent 2016 rehabilitation policy, not a more concessional 1992 scheme, and imposed a five-year lock-in period on the transfer of any allotted alternative plots to prevent commercial speculation.
This landmark decision is expected to streamline land acquisition procedures by mitigating excessive demands for rehabilitation, ensuring that the limited resources for resettlement are focused on genuinely displaced and economically vulnerable families.
