Safiya Malik

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed the notification issued by the State of Haryana, which had reclassified land owned by the petitioner from "residential" to "agricultural" under the Final Development Plan for Ambala. The court recorded that the decision was made without conducting a scientific survey or granting the petitioner a hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The petitioner, an infrastructure development company, had applied for a license to develop a residential plotted colony over its land. The court directed the state authorities to reconsider the petitioner’s application on the same terms and conditions as initially prescribed, ensuring adherence to due process.

The dispute arose from a writ petition filed by Maharishi Markandeshwar Developers Private Ltd. challenging the notification dated September 6, 2012, issued by the Haryana government, which reclassified the petitioner’s land from "residential" to "agricultural" under the Final Development Plan 2025 AD for Ambala. The petitioner also sought a direction to the authorities to decide its application for a license to develop a residential plotted colony over 95.431 acres of land in Ambala.

The petitioner applied for a license under the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975, on November 21, 2008, submitting all required documents and depositing a sum of Rs. 3,35,07,057/-. The authorities sought additional documents, which the petitioner provided. However, the state subsequently issued a notification reclassifying the land as agricultural, citing flood risks from the nearby Tangri River. The petitioner contended that this reclassification was arbitrary, as surrounding areas remained classified as residential and industrial.

In response, the state argued that the site was prone to flooding and that the decision was based on technical advice from the Irrigation Department. It was submitted that allowing a residential colony in the area would pose risks to future inhabitants and that the decision to reclassify was taken in the interest of public safety. The state referred to a report from the Central Water Commission (CWC), which recommended against permitting construction within embankments along the river.

The court examined the sequence of events leading to the reclassification and found that the decision had been taken without a proper scientific study. It observed:

"Now prima facie at the stage contemporaneous to the impugned notification becoming passed by the respondent concerned, it appears that no scientific survey became conducted at the instance of the respondent concerned, to ensure that thereby become reconciled the rights of the present petitioner to utilize its property vis-a-vis the rights of the inhabitants of the colony."

The court also took note of earlier reports, including one from IIT Roorkee, which had suggested that a residential colony could be developed with proper flood protection measures. It recorded: "Prof. Z. Ahmed, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT, Roorkee, after making a research with respect to the floodability of the subject land, has made certain ameliorative recommendations."

The court found that the state’s reliance on the CWC report was misplaced, as it was not based on an empirical study of flood patterns in the area. It stated: "The conclusions formed by CWC do not become well grooved, in consonant therewith imperative empirical data becoming collected from the subject lands, thus ranging over a period at least extending up to 25 years, wherebys the application of the supra to the subject lands but is purely surmises, besides is whimsical."

The court recorded that despite the reclassification of the petitioner’s land, a thickly inhabited locality existed adjacent to the river, and the state had taken no action to address flood risks in those areas. It stated: "The State of Haryana has been ex facie apathetic to the safety concerns of the residents of the said colonies. A well-redressal to the grievances of the inhabitants of the colonies, who do imminently suffer threats from flood actions, would ensue only if certain disaster management plans become prepared."

The court further observed that the state’s approach in reclassifying the petitioner’s land, while allowing habitation in adjacent areas, was arbitrary. It recorded: "Therefore, when on both the banks of river Tangri, there were existing but at the time of filing of present petitioner’s application, thus heavily inhabited localities, and, also when it appears that subsequently also thus there existing a thickly inhabited colony(ies), and, which are also vulnerable to inundation on account of swelling of waters of river Tangri."

Based on its findings, the court set aside the notification reclassifying the petitioner’s land as agricultural and directed the state authorities to reconsider the petitioner’s application for a residential development license. The court ordered that the application should be processed based on the terms and conditions in place at the time of submission. It recorded:

"Therefore, since the expanse of the constitutional guarantee of right to life, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, is to be extended, even to the right of user of those properties, which occur on the banks of the rivers concerned, irrespective of amenability of inundation thereofs, on account of swellings of the rivers concerned."

The court stated that any future decisions regarding the classification of land must be based on scientific studies and that state authorities must ensure uniform application of planning policies.

Case Title: Maharishi Markandeshwar Developers Private Ltd. vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
Case Number: CWP No. 1101 of 2013 (O&M)
Bench: Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Justice Vikas Suri

[Read/Download order]