Rehabilitation Not Necessary In Land Acquisition Cases Except For Those Who Lost Residence Or Livelihood : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently observed that rehabilitation of landowners, beyond monetary compensation for government-acquired land, is not mandatory, though the government may offer additional benefits guided by humanitarian considerations of fairness and equity.

However, the Court clarified that rehabilitation should be provided in cases where acquisition destroys livelihoods (e.g., land-dependent communities).

“When land is acquired for any public purpose the person whose land is taken away is entitled to appropriate compensation in accordance with the settled principles of law. It is only in the rarest of the rare case that the Government may consider floating any scheme for rehabilitation of the displaced persons over and above paying them compensation in terms of money. At times the State Government with a view to appease its subjects float unnecessary schemes and ultimately land up in difficulties. It would unnecessarily give rise to number of litigations. The classic example is the one at hand. What we would like to convey is that it is not necessary that in all cases over and above compensation in terms of money, rehabilitation of the property owners is a must. Any beneficial measures taken by the Government should be guided only by humanitarian considerations of fairness and equity towards the landowners.”, the court observed.

“Ordinarily, rehabilitation should only be meant for those persons who have been rendered destitute because of loss of residence or livelihood as a consequence of land acquisition. In other words, for people whose lives and livelihood are intrinsically connected to the land.”, the court added.

The bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan made these observations while deciding a case where the Respondent/Landowners were promised by the Appellant/Haryana Urban Development Authority to rehabilitate them under its 1992 Policy against acquisition of their land over and above the compensation paid to them against the land acquisition.

The Respondent/Oustees claimed rehabilitation, which was denied by the Appellant, reasoning that proper procedure under the 1992 policy was followed by the Respondents for claiming rehabilitation. Aggrieved by High Court's direction to provide rehabilitation, the HUDA approached the Supreme Court.

The judgment authored by Justice Pardiwala, although set aside the High Court's decision but noted that the proper procedure set out in the 1992 Policy was not followed by the landowners to claim rehabilitation.

The Court observed that although the landowners were entitled to rehabilitation under the 1992 Policy, they were ultimately denied the benefit due to procedural lapses. It remarked that the present case exemplified avoidable litigation, arising from the State's tendency to offer schemes aimed at appeasing landowners for smoother land acquisition, which in turn left the landowners vulnerable to protracted legal battles over technical defects.

It may be noted that the new land acquisition law enacted in 2013 (RFCTLARR Act) provides for rehabilitation as well apart from monetary compensation.

Cause Title: ESTATE OFFICER, HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS. VERSUS NIRMALA DEVI

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 700

Click here to read/download the judgment

Also From Judgment: S.39 Specific Relief Act | Principles On Grant Of Mandatory Injunction : Supreme Court Explains