Explainer: Why HC stayed AAP’s land pooling policy in Punjab

The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order staying Punjab’s Land Pooling Policy-2025 has criticised the State’s move, holding that it was “notified in haste” without mandatory social and environmental impact assessments, timelines, or a grievance redressal mechanism.

It warned that the plan sought to take over tens of thousands of acres of fertile multi-cropped land, ignored the rehabilitation of landless workers, lacked budgetary backing for massive proposed acquisitions, and risked repeating past failures where landowners were left waiting over a decade for their developed plots.

What did the court say?

The Division Bench of Justices Anupinder Singh Grewal and Deepak Manchanda did not mince words: “We are, prima facie, of the view that the policy appears to have been notified in haste and all concerns including social impact assessment, environmental impact assessment, timelines and a grievance redressal mechanism should have been addressed at the very outset in the policy before its notification.”

The judges observed that the State proposed to take over “tens of thousands of acres of fertile land” for development without carrying out any Social Impact Assessment (SIA) or Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).

The court asserted that such fertile multi-cropped land could only be acquired in exceptional circumstances under the Land Acquisition Act, 2013, and warned of a possible impact on the social environment.

Why is the court concerned?

The State’s stance was that SIA and EIA would be done later, once it knew the number of landowners opting for the scheme. The Bench rejected this approach, while pointing out that the Supreme Court had repeatedly held that such studies were required to precede urban development.

The court also recorded serious gaps in the policy, including the absence of timelines for implementation, the lack of a grievance redressal mechanism, and no provision for the resettlement or rehabilitation of landless laborers, artisans, MGNREGA workers, and others dependent on the land.

A subsistence allowance was offered to landowners. But the court asserted there was nothing for non-owners whose livelihoods would be disrupted.

What did the amicus curiae say?

Senior Advocate Shailendra Jain, assisting the court as amicus curiae, challenged the State’s claim that the scheme was “purely voluntary.” He pointed to the policy’s provision allowing the State to acquire remaining land—those plots not voluntarily offered—through compulsory acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 2013. This, he argued, meant the policy fell within the Act’s definition of a “project,” making SIA and EIA mandatory.

What about finances?

The Bench took note of the State’s arguments that its statutory bodies would develop the land, but added that budgetary provisions were not in place. The amicus submitted that around Rs 10,000 crore would be required to develop land in just one district. Yet no plan or evidence of adequate resources was presented.

Why past experience matters

The court referred to past failures under earlier pooling schemes. It asserted that developed plots had not been allotted in several cases, even after ten years. It cited a 2018 petition where the petitioner’s land was acquired in 2015 under a pooling policy, but neither development work nor allotment had occurred in Mohali’s Sectors 90 and 91.

What happens next

The court has fixed September 10 as the next hearing date. It has allowed the State and other respondents to file their replies.

Punjab