“Act of 1894 Cannot Succumb to the Pressure of the Act of 1985”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Land Acquisition in NCR Despite Lack of Planning Board Approval
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Division Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri dismissed a writ petition challenging the acquisition of land for development in Sector 6, Rohtak. The Court held that the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the National Capital Region Planning Board Act, 1985 operate in distinct domains and that the absence of planning approval under the latter does not vitiate acquisitions validly conducted under the former. The acquisition proceedings were upheld, and the petition was dismissed.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Division Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri dismissed a writ petition challenging land acquisition carried out for a residential project in Rohtak. The Court held that the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the National Capital Region Planning Board Act, 1985 occupy distinct legislative fields and are not interdependent. It concluded that land acquisition lawfully executed under the 1894 Act cannot be invalidated solely on the ground of lack of planning approval under the 1985 Act. The acquisition proceedings were upheld, and the petition stood dismissed.
The petitioner sought quashing of acquisition proceedings concerning land located in the revenue estate of village Para, Tehsil and District Rohtak, acquired for the development of Sector 6, Rohtak. The land acquisition had been initiated through a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, followed by an award under Section 11 dated 29 December 2004.
The challenge was premised on the alleged violation of the National Capital Region Planning Board Act, 1985. The petitioner contended that Rohtak falls within the National Capital Region (NCR), and as per Section 19 of the 1985 Act, no sub-regional plan or master plan for Rohtak had been approved by the National Capital Region Planning Board (NCRPB).
The petitioner had obtained information through a Right to Information (RTI) application dated 14 January 2024, in response to which the NCRPB stated on 19 February 2024 that it had not approved any sub-regional plan or master plan for Rohtak since its inclusion in the NCR.
The petitioner submitted that the absence of an approved sub-regional plan rendered the land acquisition process in violation of the 1985 Act and contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Devender Kumar Tyagi v. State of U.P., (2011) 9 SCC 164. In that case, the Apex Court had declared the absence of requisite planning approvals a ground for invalidating projects undertaken within the NCR.
The State authorities, including the Haryana State Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP), were alleged to have implemented the development plan for Rohtak from the year 2001 onwards without obtaining the required approvals from the NCRPB, as mandated under the 1985 Act.
The petitioner argued that in view of the Supreme Court’s decision in Devender Kumar Tyagi, the land acquisition for Sector 6, Rohtak, conducted without prior planning approvals, was invalid. The petition, therefore, prayed for the entire acquisition process to be quashed.
The Division Bench considered the constitutional and statutory framework governing both enactments and found that they occupy independent legislative domains.
“Though the judgment (supra) while making an interpretation of the (supra) provisions firmly declares, that for wants of requisite approval becoming granted by the Board, therebys the planning as envisaged in respect of the (supra) districts of Haryana, (which comes under the NCR) or the U.T. concerned, thus begets vitiation.”
However, the Court recorded that the principles laid down in Devender Kumar Tyagi were not applicable to the present case, stating: “The ratio decidendi as encapsulated in the judgment supra, however is not applicable to the facts at hand.”
Addressing the core distinction between the two enactments, the Court stated:
“The field occupied by the Act of 1985, rather is completely different from the field occupied by the Act of 1894, inasmuch as, the Act of 1985, is rather for planned development, whereas, the field occupied by the Act of 1894, is for making acquisition(s) through the employment of the power of eminent domain.”
The Court noted that no provision in either Act conferred superiority of one over the other: “When in neither of the (supra) Acts, there exists any provision(s) wherebys either the Act of 1985 or the Act of 1894, thus becomes assigned predominance.”
It further clarified: “When both (supra) statutes effectively thus occupy different fields, and are not given preponderance over each other. Resultantly, the Act of 1894 cannot succumb to the pressure of the Act of 1985.”
The Bench thus declined to apply the principle laid down in the Tyagi case to invalidate the land acquisition in Rohtak.
The Division Bench concluded its judgment with the following directive:
“In aftermath, the instant petition is dismissed. Moreover, the acquisition and development of land in Sector 6, Rohtak is hereby affirmed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Mohit Rathee, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Ankur Mittal, Additional Advocate General, Ms. Svaneel Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, Mr. P.P. Chahar, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Mr. Gaurav Bansal, Deputy Advocate General, Mr. Karan Jindal, Assistant Advocate General,
Case Title: Rajbir Singh v. Union of India and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:045220-DB
Case Number: CWP-5735-2025
Bench: Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Justice Vikas Suri
[Read/Download order]
