Plea Of Deprivation Of Right To Livelihood Under Art. 21 Not Sustainable In Land Acquisition Cases: SC

The Supreme Court has on July 14, 2025 held that in cases of land acquisition, the plea of deprivation of right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution is unsustainable.

The Top Court stressed that it is not necessary that in all cases of acquisition of land for public purpose, the State is bound to rehabilitate the property owners over and above compensation in terms of money, saying any beneficial measures taken by the government should be guided only by humanitarian considerations of fairness and equity towards them.

"Ordinarily, rehabilitation should only be meant for those persons who have been rendered destitute because of loss of residence or livelihood as a consequence of land acquisition. In other words, for people whose lives and livelihood are intrinsically connected to the land," a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said.

The court emphasised that the acquisition of land does not violate any constitutional/fundamental right of the displaced persons. However, they are entitled to resettlement and rehabilitation as per the policy framed for the oustees of the project concerned.

In this regard, the bench cited Amarjit Singh & Ors Vs State of Punjab & Ors (2010), wherein it has been held that rehabilitation is not a recognised right either under the Constitution or under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The rehabilitation of the property owners is a part of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and that acquisition made in exercise of power of eminent domain for public purpose and that individual right of ownership over land must yield place to the larger public good.

In S Gurdial Singh & Others Vs Ludhiana Improvement Trust (1995), the Top Court observed that the benefit of providing alternative sites should not be uniformly and mechanically extended to all the cases unless there is any express scheme framed by appropriate authorities and the scheme is in operation, the bench pointed out.

The court was dealing with a batch of appeals filed by Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and others against the the Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgment of August 12, 2016. The High Court dismissed Second Appeals filed by the appellant herein, and affirmed the judgment and order passed by he First Appellate Court upholding the decrees passed by the trial court in favour of the respondents herein.

The bench said this litigation is an eye opener for all States in this country.

If land is required for any public purpose law permits, the Government or any of its instrumentality has to acquire in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act or any other State Act enacted for the purpose of acquisition. When land is acquired for any public purpose the person whose land is taken away, is entitled to appropriate compensation in accordance with the settled principles of law, the court pointed out.

"It is only in the rarest of the rare case that the Government may consider floating any scheme for rehabilitation of the displaced persons over and above paying them compensation in terms of money. At times the State Government with a view to appease its subjects float unnecessary schemes and ultimately land up in difficulties. It would unnecessarily give rise to number of litigations. The classic example is the one at hand," the bench added.

In Haryana, the state government framed a policy that oustees would be entitled to alternate land in accordance with the policy framed by it.

In the case on hand, the suits were instituted by the respondents for mandatory injunction seeking allotment of plots, in accordance with the scheme of 1992 floated by the State of Haryana.

The bench, however, said, a relief which is not amenable for exercising judicial discretion of the court cannot be granted by way of a mandatory injunction - It should satisfy not only breach of an obligation and the necessity of its prevention, but also the availability of judicial discretion to be exercised. A mere breach of an obligation or necessity to prevent the same alone cannot be brought under the purview of mandatory injunction unless the same is amenable for exercising discretion by the court.

"We are still inclined to direct the appellant to allot the plots to the eligible oustees in accordance with the Policy of 2016. It shall be open for the eligible oustees i.e., the respondent herein to apply online in accordance with the Policy of 2016 with the requisite deposit of the amount. If such application is filed online with the deposit of the requisite amount, the appellant shall consider the same and process the online application accordingly," the bench ordered.

The appellant told the court that it would abide by the policy framed on August 11, 2016 and every eligible oustee would be accommodated according to the said policy.

The controversy before the court was whether the respondents as oustees are entitled to the benefit of the scheme of 1992 or the scheme of 2016 as further modified in 2018.

Case Title: Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority And Ors Vs Nirmala Devi