Ranjit Singh Dhawan & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

2. 3. The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded The date when the judgment is uploaded The date when the judgment is uploaded

26.02.2026 26.05.2026 27.05.2026 No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases Whether only operative part of the judgment is Whether only operative part of the judgment is 4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether pronounced or whether pronounced or whether pronounced pronounced The delay, if any of the pronouncement of full Not applicable The delay, if any of the pronouncement of full The delay, if any of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof judgment, and reasons thereof judgment judgment judgment the full the full the full Full

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI HON’BLE Present : Mr. Puneet Bali, Senior Advocate with Mr. Puneet Bali, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aakash Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Aakash Sharma, Advocate, For the petitioners in CWP-17363 For the petitioners in CWP 17363-2020. Mr. Shailendra Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shailendra Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shailendra Jain, Senior Advocate with Ms. Ruchi Jain, Advocate and Ms. Ruchi Jain, Advocate and Mr. Sandeep Dhiman, Advocate, Mr. Sandeep Dhiman, Advocat For the petitioners in CWP-18107 For the petitioners in CWP 18107-2020. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kunal Mulwani, Advocate and Mr. Kunal Mulwani, Advocate and Mr. Mr. Ritvik Garg, Advocate, Mr. Ritvik Garg, Advocate, For the petitioners in CWP-4016- For the petitioners in CWP -2021.

i)

follows: The brief facts of the case are as follows: The brief facts of the case are as Notification dated December 05, 201 Notification dated December 05, 2017 under Section 4 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the was issued to carry out Social Impact Assessment (SIA) Study was issued to carry out Social Impact Assessment (SIA) 2013 Act”) was issued to carry out Social Impact Assessment (SIA) parcels of land in 05 villages namely regarding acquisition of several parcels of land in 05 villages namely regarding acquisition of Bakarpur, Rurka, Safipur, Naraingarh and Chatt for the public purpose of Bakarpur, Rurka, Safipur, Naraingarh and Chatt Bakarpur, Rurka, Safipur, Naraingarh and Chatt “setting up of Aerotropolis Residential Project ne “setting up of Residential Project near I.T. City and Aero City The land in dispute in the present writ petition No.17363 of 2020 Scheme”. The land in dispute in the present writ petition No.17363 of 2020 The land in dispute in the present writ petition No.17363 of 2020 is situated in village in village Chatt. ii) Public notice regarding conducting of Public notice regarding conducting of SIA study was published in newspapers on December 20, 2017. The final in newspapers final SIA Report was published on August 23, 2018. on August 23, 2018 iii) Pursuant to the SIA report, preliminary Notification under Pursuant to the SIA report, preliminary Notification under Pursuant to the SIA report, preliminary Notification under Section 11 of the 2013 Act for land acquisition was issued on February 6, Section 11 of the 2013 Act for land acquisition was issued on Section 11 of the 2013 Act for land acquisition was issued on

2019. In March In March 2019, the petitioners filed the petitioners filed their objections against the acquisition proceedings under Section 15 of the 2013 Act acquisition proceedings under Section 15 of the 2013 Act. iv) Under Section 19(1) of the 2013 Act, Under Section 19(1) of the 2013 Act, the period of 12 months stipulated for publication of declaration from the date of issuance of the was stipulated for publication of declaration from the date of issuance of the stipulated for publication of declaration from the date of issuance of the d declaration could not be published preliminary notification. Since the said declaration could not be published preliminary notification. Since the sai within the stipulated time i.e by February 05, 2020, the government vide within the stipulated time i.e by February 05, 2020 within the stipulated time i.e by February 05, 2020 notification dated February 05, 2020, extended notification dated , extended the time for making the declaration by 03 months i.e till May 04, 2020 declaration by 03 months 0 under the second proviso to Section 19 (7) of the 2013 Act Section 19 (7) of the 2013 Act v) Admittedly, the government was not able to publish the Admittedly, the government was not able to publish the Admittedly, the government was not able to publish the declaration within the extended period i.e by May 0 declaration within the extende riod i.e by May 04, 2020.

The Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) issued a public notice dated May 06, 2020 Acquisition Collector (LAC) issued a public notice Acquisition Collector (LAC) issued a public notice seeking to extend the per extend the period of publication of of the said declaration under No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases a further period of 06 months i.e till Section 19(1) of the 2013 Act by a further period of 06 months i.e till Section 19(1) November 04, 2020. November 04, 2020. vi) Declaration under Section 19 Declaration (1) of the 2013 Act for published on August 28, 2020. acquisition of the disputed land was finally published on August 28, 2020. acquisition of the disputed land The petitioners have laid challenge to the aforesaid acquisition proceedings The petitioners have laid challenge to the aforesaid acquisition proceedings The petitioners have laid challenge to the aforesaid acquisition proceedings resent writ petitions being in violation of not only the provisions of in the present writ petitions being in violation of not only the provisions of resent writ petitions being in violation of not only the provisions of the 2013 Act but also the principles of natural justice and the law governing the 2013 Act but also the principles of natural justice and the law go the 2013 Act but also the principles of natural justice and the law go the field on land acquisition proceedings. the field on land acquisition proceedings. ON BEHALF OF WRIT PETITIONERS SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF WRIT PETITIONERS SUBMISSIONS

Mr. Bali, learned senior advocate Mr. Bali, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioners that the acquisition in question has (in CWP No.17363 of 2020) submitted that the acquisition in question has (in CWP No.17363 of 2020) statutory provisions of the 2013 Act and been made in violation of the statutory provisions of the 2013 Act and been made in violation of the therefore, is liable to be set He drew attention of this Court to the liable to be set-aside. He drew attention of this Court to the second proviso to Section 4 (2) of the 2013 Act which stipulated that second proviso to Section 4 (2) of the 2013 Act which stipulated that second proviso to Section 4 (2) of the 2013 Act which stipulated that appropriate government shall

ensure the completion of the appropriate government ensure the completion of the Social Impact tudy within a period of six months from the date of its Assessment Study within a period of six months from the date of its tudy within a period of six months from the date of its commencement

. commencement

In the present case, the notification under Section 4(1) of the In the present case, the notification under Section 4(1) In the present case, the notification under Section 4(1) 2013 Act for conducting a SIA Study was published on December 05, 2017. 2013 Act for conducting a SIA Study was published on December 05, 2017. 2013 Act for conducting a SIA Study was published on December 05, 2017. Even though a draft SIA report was submitted on March 26, 2018, the final Even though a draft SIA report was submitted on March 26, 2018, the final Even though a draft SIA report was submitted on March 26, 2018, the final SIA report could not be submitted by the government by June 04, 2018 (i.e SIA report could not be submitted by the government by June 04, 2018 (i.e SIA report could not be submitted by the government by June 04, 2018 (i.e from the date of publication of the notification within a period of 06 months from the date of publication of the notification within a period of 06 months he final SIA report was submitted under Section 4(1) of the 2013 Act). As the final SIA report was submitted under Section 4(1) of the 2013 Act). much belatedly on August 23, 2018 in violation of Section 4(2) of the 2013 much belatedly on August 23, 2018 in violation of Section 4(2) of the 2013 much belatedly on August 23, 2018 in violation of Section 4(2) of the 2013 No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases the acquisition proceedings should be set-aside. Furthermore, he the acquisition proceedings should be set Act, the acquisition proceedings should be set contended that there was no mention of village Chatt, in contended that there was no mention of village Chatt, in the final report.

5. Next, he submitted that under Section 6(1) of the 2013 Act, the Next, he submitted that under Section 6(1) of the 2013 Act, the Next, he submitted that under Section 6(1) of the 2013 Act, the appropriate government was under a statutory obligation to ensure that the appropriate government was under a statutory obligation to ensure that appropriate government was under a statutory obligation to ensure that SIA Study report and the Social Impact Management (SIM) Plan referred to SIA Study report and the Social Impact Management SIA Study report and the Social Impact Management in Section 4 of the 2013 Act were prepared and made available in local in Section 4 of the 2013 Act were prepared and made in Section 4 of the 2013 Act were prepared and made languages to the Panchayats, Municipality or languages to the or Municipal Corporation and of the District Collectors, Sub Divisional Magistrates and the of the District Collectors, Sub Divisional Magistrates the offices of the District Collectors, Sub Divisional Magistrates be published in the affected areas in a manner that may be Tehsils and be published in the affected areas in a manner that may be be published in the affected areas in a manner that may be prescribed and the same be uploaded on the website of the appropriate and the same be uploaded on the website of the appropriate government.

N Neither the SIA study report nor SIM pl either the SIA study report nor SIM plan was prepared and made available in local languages to Panchayat, Municipality made available in local languages Panchayat, Municipality or Municipal Corporation nor nor were they made available at the office were they made available at the offices of District Collectors, Sub Divisional Magistrates or Tehsil Collectors, Sub D Tehsil of the affected areas. The SIM plan was neither published in a prescribed manner SIA report and the SIM plan was neither published in a prescribed manner SIA report and the nor uploaded on the website of the appropriate government. The petitioners nor uploaded on the website of the appropriate government. nor uploaded on the website of the appropriate government. were called for a public hearing on May 30, 2018 vide notice dated May 22, were called for a public hearing on May 30, 2018 vide notice dated May 22, were called for a public hearing on May 30, 2018 vide notice dated May 22, 2018 without being appraised of the SIA report or S 2018 without being of the SIA report or SIM plan, in complete violation of Section 6(1) of the 2013 Act. violation of Section 6(1) of the 2013 Act.

Next, the constitution of the Expert Group formed under Next, the constitution of the Expert Group formed under Next, the constitution of the Expert Group formed under Section 7(2) of the 2013 Act to evaluate the SIA report has been challenged. Section 7(2) of the 2013 Act to evaluate the SIA report has been challenged. Section 7(2) of the 2013 Act to evaluate the SIA report has been challenged. Under Section 7(2) of the 2013 Act, a multi Under Section 7(2) of the 2013 Act, multi-disciplinary expert group constituted for the purpose of violation of the SIA report was mandatorily constituted for the purpose of violation of the SIA report was mandatorily constituted for the purpose of violation of the SIA report was mandatorily required to include the following members: required to include the following members:

(a) two non official social scientists; (a) two non-official social scientists; No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases representatives of Panchayat, Gram Sabha, (b) (b) (b) representatives of Panchayat, Gram Sabha, representatives of Panchayat, Gram Sabha, or Municipal Corporation, as the case may be; Municipality or Municipal Corporation, as the case may be; Municipality (c) two experts on rehabilitation; and (c) two experts on rehabilitation; and (c) two experts on rehabilitation; and (d) a technical expert in the subject relating to the project.

(d) a technical expert in the subject relating to the project. (d) a technical expert in the subject relating to the project. He submitted that the mandatory requirement of two representatives of He submitted that the mandatory requirement of He submitted that the mandatory requirement of Panchayat, Gram Sabha, Municipality or Municipal Corporation Panchayat, Gram Sabha, Municipality Municipal Corporation (as the case may be) being being included in the expert group included in the expert group was not adhered to, in clear violation of the provisions of Section 7(2) of the 2013 Act. the provisions of Section 7(2) of the 2013 Act.

made by the expert group favouring the The recommendations made by the expert group favouring the The recommendations recommendations for acquisition containing the details and reasons for such recommendations for acquisition containing the details and reasons for such recommendations for acquisition containing the details and reasons for such a decision had to be made available in the local language to Panchayat, a decision had to be made available in the local language to a decision had to be made available in the local language to Municipality or or Municipal Corporation and offices offices of District Collectors, Sub Divisional Magistrates also had to be published in the ivisional Magistrates or Tehsil and also had to be published in the affected areas in the manner prescribed and uploaded on the websit affected areas in the manner prescribed uploaded on the website of the appropriate government, which was not done in the present case. appropriate government, which was not done in the present case. appropriate government, which was not done in the present case.

ued that once the proposals given Furthermore, it has been argued that once the proposals given Furthermore, it has been arg by the SIA report and the recommendations given by the expert group were by the SIA report and the recommendations given by the expert group were by the SIA report and the recommendations given by the expert group were considered by the appropriate government, considered by the appropriate government then it would independently have to assess whether assess whether there is a legitimate and there is a legitimate and bona fide purpose for the potential benefits and the public proposed acquisition and whether the potential benefits and the public proposed acquisition and purpose shall outweigh the social costs of the adverse social impact. The purpose shall outweigh the social costs of the adverse social impact. The purpose shall outweigh the social costs of the adverse social impact. The of the government had to be made available in the offices of of the government had to be made available in the offices decision of the government had to be made available in the offices District Collectors, Sub Divisional Magistrates District Collectors, Sub D isional Magistrates or Tehsil which was not done in violation of Section 8(3) of the 2013 Act. done in violation of Section 8(3) of the 2013 Act. done in violation of Section 8(3) of the 2013 Act. No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases

Without complying with the statutory safeguards regarding the Without complying with the statutory safeguards regarding the Without complying with the statutory safeguards regarding the SIA study, assessment and recommendations of the expert group, the State SIA study, assessment and recommendations of the expert group, the State SIA study, assessment and recommendations of the expert group, the State y notification under Section 11 of the 2013 Act on published a preliminary notification under Section 11 of the 2013 Act on published a preliminar February 06, 2019. Even though the land owners/interested persons have February 06, 2019. Even though the land owners/interested persons have February 06, 2019. Even though the land owners/interested persons have submitted their objections within 60 days from the date of publication of the submitted their objections within 60 days from the date of publication of the submitted their objections within 60 days from the date of publication of the preliminary notification under Section 15(1) of the 2013 Act, no proper preliminary notification under Section 15(1) of the 2013 preliminary notification under Section 15(1) of the 2013 opportunity of hearing under Section 15(2) of the 2013 Act was provided to opportunity of hearing under Section 15(2) of the 2013 Act was provided to opportunity of hearing under Section 15(2) of the 2013 Act was provided to the petitioners. Such inaction/omission/conduct of the Collector the petitioners. conduct of the Collector was not only in violation of the statutory provisions but also against the principles of only in violation of the statutory provisions but also against the principles of only in violation of the statutory provisions but also against the principles of natural justice rendering th justice rendering the acquisition proceedings nugatory e acquisition proceedings nugatory.

contended that once a preliminary notification Next, Mr. Bali contended that once a preliminary notification Next, was published under Section 11 of the 2013 Act, then a declaration to the was published under Section 11 of the 2013 Act, then a declaration to th was published under Section 11 of the 2013 Act, then a declaration to th effect that the land that the land was required for acquisition for acquisition had to be published within 12 months from the date of preliminary notification as stipulated under 12 months from the date of preliminary notification as stipulated under 12 months from the date of preliminary notification as stipulated under Section 19(7) of the 2013 Act. Admittedly, the declaration was not Section 19(7) of the 2013 Act. Admittedly, the declaration was not Section 19(7) of the 2013 Act. Admittedly, the declaration was not published within the stipulated period of 12 months i.e by February 05, published within the stipulated period of 12 months i.e by February 05, published within the stipulated period of 12 months i.e by February 05, ng the aid of the second proviso to Section 19(7) of 2020.

After expiry of the extended period, the LAC vide public After expiry of the extended period After expiry of the extended period notice issued on June 11, 2020 (sic May 06, 2020) notice issued on June 11, 2020 ( May 06, 2020) could not have retrospectively extended the time period of publication of notification retrospectively extended the time period of publication of notification for the second time under Section 19 of the 2013 Act the second time under Section 19 of the 2013 Act. In other words, there was neither any provision for retrospective extension under the Act no neither any provision for retrospective extension under the Act nor could an extension be made be made by a way of ‘public notice public notice’. The 2013 Act mandated under Section 19 (7) of the Act, if extension only by way of a ‘notification’ under Section 19 (7) of the Act, if extension only by way of a ‘ the appropriate government was of the opinion that circumstances existed the appropriate government was of the opinion that circumstances existed the appropriate government was of the opinion that circumstances existed justifying the same. justifying the same.

In support of his contentions, Mr. Bali has relied on the In support of his contentions, In support of his contentions, following judgments: following judgments: