The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled in favor of the Haryana Government by upholding its land acquisition in the National Capital Region (NCR), specifically in Sector 6, Rohtak. The court clarified that the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the National Capital Region Planning Board Act, 1985 (NCRPB Act) serve different functions and do not override or invalidate each other.
This decision came in response to a writ petition (CWP-5735-2025) filed by Rajbir Singh, who challenged the acquisition of his land by the Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP) for the development of a residential sector in Rohtak. Singh argued that the acquisition was invalid as the requisite approval under the NCRPB Act was not obtained.
Background of the Case
The land in question was acquired through a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with the award being passed on 29 December 2004 under Section 11 of the same Act.
The petitioner contended that the acquisition violated the NCRPB Act, 1985, since Rohtak is a part of the National Capital Region and any development in the area requires a sub-regional plan or master plan to be first approved by the NCR Planning Board.
In support, the petitioner presented an RTI reply dated 19 February 2024 which stated that no sub-regional or master plan for District Rohtak had ever been approved by the NCRPB. Based on this, it was argued that the acquisition proceedings lacked legality.
“Whether the board has approved any sub-regional plan or Master Plan for District Rohtak, Haryana since its inclusion in NCR.” – RTI query submitted by the petitioner
“Since inception, no sub-regional or master plan for District Rohtak has been approved.” – RTI Reply by NCRPB (Annexure P-2)
Despite this, the HSVP had gone ahead with implementing the Rohtak Development Plan 2001 and the related land acquisitions, without seeking or securing the NCRPB’s approval.
Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Devender Kumar Tyagi v. State of U.P. (2011) 9 SCC 164, the petitioner claimed that development projects within the NCR without the prior approval of the NCRPB were invalid.
“Admittedly, the respondents had not obtained the approval of the NCRPB... Once the NCRPB affirms the conformity of the said plan with the regional plan, only then the State Government can finalize it.” – Devender Kumar Tyagi v. State of U.P. (2011) 9 SCC 164
He also cited Section 19 of the NCRPB Act, which mandates that a State must submit its sub-regional plan to the Board before publishing or implementing it, and only after conformity is established, the plan can be finalized.
“Before publishing any Sub-Regional Plan, each participating State shall refer such Plan to the Board to ensure that such Plan is in conformity with the Regional Plan.” – Section 19(1), NCRPB Act
The petitioner alleged that failure to follow this mandatory process rendered the entire land acquisition in Rohtak illegal and void.
A division bench comprising Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri examined the issue in detail and drew a clear distinction between the purpose of the two Acts.
“The Act of 1985 is 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 concluded that:
- NCRPB Act, 1985 is concerned with planned regional development, while
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 deals with procedural acquisition of land for public purposes.
“When different fields are occupied by the Acts... and in neither of the Acts, there exists any provision(s) wherebys either Act becomes assigned predominance... Resultantly, the Act of 1894 cannot succumb to the pressure of the Act of 1985.” – Punjab & Haryana High Court
The High Court clarified that both laws serve separate functions, and one does not override or nullify the other. As such, the absence of NCRPB approval does not invalidate land acquisitions done under the Land Acquisition Act.
The Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Rajbir Singh and affirmed the validity of the land acquisition in Sector 6, Rohtak.
“The instant petition is dismissed. Moreover, the acquisition and development of land in Sector 6, Rohtak is hereby affirmed.” – Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri
The judgment reinforces the position that planning legislation and land acquisition laws can function independently, and non-approval under the NCRPB Act does not inherently negate acquisitions conducted under the Land Acquisition Act.
This decision offers clarity on the legal interplay between regional planning and land acquisition, especially in areas falling under the National Capital Region.
Consequently, the plea was dismissed.
Mr. Mohit Rathee, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. A.G., Haryana with Ms. Svaneel Jaswal, Addl. A.G. Haryana, Mr. P.P. Chahar, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Gaurav Bansal, DAG, Haryana and Mr. Karan Jindal, Assistant A.G. Haryana.
Title: RAJBIR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
