No Statutory Precedence Between Planning and Acquisition Laws’: Punjab & Haryana HC Upholds Rohtak Land Acquisition, Rejects NCRPB Act Challenge
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court comprising Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash land acquisition proceedings for alleged violations of the National Capital Region Planning Board Act, 1985. The Court stated that the absence of approval from the National Capital Region Planning Board (NCRPB) for the sub-regional plan of Rohtak did not invalidate the acquisition carried out under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
The petition had challenged the acquisition of land in Sector 6, Rohtak, contending that the Haryana Shahari Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP) had failed to obtain prior approval from the NCRPB as mandated under Section 19 of the 1985 Act. The petitioner, Rajbir Singh, argued that the acquisition was in direct contravention of the Supreme Court’s judgement in Devender Kumar Tyagi v. State of U.P. (2011) 9 SCC 164, and thus liable to be quashed.
The petitioner approached the Court to challenge the acquisition proceedings pertaining to his land located in village Para, Tehsil and District Rohtak. The acquisition was part of the development project for Sector 6, Rohtak and was initiated through a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The award in the matter had been passed on 29.12.2004 under Section 11 of the said Act.
The central contention in the writ petition was that the land acquisition was illegal since the sub-regional plan or master plan for District Rohtak had not received approval from the NCRPB. To support this claim, the petitioner cited an RTI response dated 19.02.2024 from the NCRPB confirming that no such approval had been granted since Rohtak’s inclusion in the National Capital Region.
According to the petitioner, the absence of approval constituted a violation of the provisions under the National Capital Region Planning Board Act, 1985, particularly Section 19. It was submitted that any development project within the NCR could only proceed after the sub-regional plan had been examined and approved by the Board. The petitioner further relied on the judgment in Devender Kumar Tyagi wherein the Apex Court had invalidated a development project undertaken without NCRPB approval.
The respondents, representing the State of Haryana and its departments, argued that the planning and acquisition statutes occupied different legislative fields. They contended that while the NCRPB Act, 1985 dealt with regional planning, the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 pertained solely to acquisition and compensation for public purposes, without mandating conformity with planning statutes.
They further asserted that the acquisition in question was completed lawfully under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and was not contingent upon approval under the NCRPB Act. It was pointed out that the Development Plan for Rohtak had been notified in 2001 and that acquisition followed all statutory procedures thereafter.
The Court addressed the pivotal issue of whether the absence of NCRPB approval vitiated the acquisition. In doing so, it noted the statutory framework and objectives of both enactments. Regarding the NCRPB Act, the Court recorded:
"The object of the NCRPB is to prepare, modify, revise and review a regional and functional plan for the development of said region and, further, to co-ordinate and monitor its implementation."
The Bench acknowledged the directive under Section 19 of the 1985 Act requiring State Governments to submit sub-regional plans to the Board to ensure their conformity with the regional plan. It cited the Supreme Court’s observations in Devender Kumar Tyagi and M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2004) 6 SCC 588, which elucidated the aim of the Act as preventing unplanned development.
However, the High Court distinguished the applicability of those precedents to the current case. It stated:
"The ratio decidendi as encapsulated in the judgment supra, however, is not applicable to the facts at hand. The reason for stating so becomes embodied in the factum, that the field occupied by the Act of 1985, rather is completely different from the field occupied by the Act of 1894..."
The judgment reasoned that both statutes catered to distinct objectives, with no express provision in either granting overriding effect to one over the other. Hence, the mere absence of an NCRPB-approved sub-regional plan could not render an acquisition invalid under the Land Acquisition Act.
It further recorded:
"When different fields are occupied by the Acts (supra), besides 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. As such, when both (supra) statutes effectively thus occupy different fields... the Act of 1894 cannot succumb to the pressure of the Act of 1985."
The Division Bench dismissed the petition, thereby affirming the legality of the acquisition proceedings initiated by the HSVP for development of Sector 6, Rohtak.
The Court concluded: "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 vs Union of India and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: PHHC:045220-DB
Case Number: CWP-5735-2025
Bench: Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri
[Read/Download order]
