Haryana must honour 2012 land-pooling scheme for acquired landowners, Punjab & Haryana High Court rules

The petitioners’ lands were acquired for development of Residential and Commercial Sector-6 Part, Jhajjar, through a notification under Section 4 dated 11 April 2011, a declaration under Section 6 dated 10 April 2012, and Award No. 5 dated 23 August 2013.

Before the award, the State notified the Land Pooling Scheme on 10 September 2012, under which eligible landowners could opt for developed residential and commercial plots in lieu of monetary compensation and other benefits under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy.

The petitioners claimed that they had submitted their option forms within the prescribed period of 60 days and had opted for developed plots.

After the award, the authorities paid them ₹42 lakh each as upfront money under Clause 5(iii) of the Scheme.

Subsequently, when the petitioners sought allotment of plots, the authorities rejected or disputed their claims on the ground that the applications had not been submitted within time.

During the proceedings, the original record was produced.

The Estate Officer, HSVP, stated that the applications of the petitioners in CWP-18425-2023, CWP-18455-2023, CWP-18797-2023, CWP-14176-2025 and CWP-18927-2025 bore acknowledgements dated 9 November 2012 and had therefore been submitted within time.

In respect of the remaining petitioners, discrepancies existed between the acknowledgement dates and the diary and dispatch register.

The Court also noted that these petitioners had received the upfront amount and had not received compensation, annuity, or benefits under the R&R Scheme.

Whether the petitioners had exercised their option under the Land Pooling Scheme within the prescribed period of 60 days and were therefore entitled to its benefits?

Whether the respondents could deny the benefit of the Land Pooling Scheme after accepting the petitioners’ applications and paying them the upfront amount under the Scheme?

Whether the doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation applied against the State and HSVP in the circumstances of the case?

Whether the petitioners were entitled to allotment of developed plots or monetary benefits under the Land Pooling Scheme despite the delay in implementation and the non-floatation of the concerned sector?

The Court applied the Land Pooling Scheme notified on 10 September 2012, particularly Clauses 3(ii), 3(iii), 5, 6, 7 and 9, under which eligible landowners could opt for developed plots in lieu of compensation and other R&R benefits, subject to the prescribed procedure and time limit.

The Court applied the doctrine of promissory estoppel, holding that a clear and unequivocal promise by the State, acted upon by the promisee to their detriment, becomes binding where it would be inequitable to permit the State to resile from it; the doctrine may operate against the State and may furnish an affirmative cause of action.

The Court also relied on the doctrine of legitimate expectation, which requires public authorities to act fairly and not defeat an expectation created by their representations or consistent conduct without adequate justification.

The Court further relied on Article 14’s prohibition against arbitrary State action and Article 300-A, which protects the right to property and requires that compulsory acquisition be accompanied by lawful and adequate compensation.

The Court found that the original record conclusively established that five sets of petitioners had submitted, and the authorities had verified and acknowledged, their option forms on 9 November 2012, within the 60-day period.

As regards the remaining petitioners, the discrepancies in the official records, together with the respondents’ payment of ₹42 lakh under Clause 5(iii), demonstrated that the petitioners had been treated as participants in the Scheme.

The petitioners had relied on the State’s representation by foregoing compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, annuity and R&R benefits.

The respondents could not therefore accept the benefit of their election and subsequently deny the corresponding obligation to allot developed plots.

The Court further held that the respondents had suffered no prejudice because the sector had not yet been floated and the upfront amount could be returned with 9% interest.

Conversely, denying the petitioners the Scheme’s benefit would leave them without compensation for land compulsorily acquired more than thirteen years earlier.

In these circumstances, promissory estoppel, legitimate expectation, fairness under Article 14 and the constitutional protection under Article 300-A required enforcement of the Scheme.

The respondents were directed to allot plots to the petitioners according to their entitlement, or provide monetary benefits in accordance with the Scheme, upon the first flotation of the developed sector.

Petitioners wishing to return the upfront amount were permitted to submit the principal amount with interest at 9% up to the date of application, accompanied by a demand draft.

The competent authority was directed to decide such applications within four weeks, with no further interest accruing after submission; return of the amount would not prejudice the petitioners’ entitlement to allotment of plots.

The respondents were further directed to endeavour to complete the flotation exercise expeditiously, particularly because more than thirteen years had elapsed since the award.