Facts of the case
- ‘A’ is the owner of three acres of agricultural land, which is his only source of livelihood.
- The government initiated land acquisition proceedings for a public purpose (unspecified).
- ‘A’ objected to the acquisition, claiming that his livelihood would be adversely affected and he has no alternative means of sustenance.
- The government has proceeded with acquisition under the land acquisition law.
Issues in the case
- Whether the acquisition violates ‘A’s right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution.
- Whether the land acquisition process has followed due procedure under the LARR Act, 2013.
- Whether objections raised by an individual landowner on personal hardship can override a legally sanctioned acquisition.
- Whether the land in question can be exempted from acquisition on grounds of livelihood protection.
Principles associated with it
- The LARR Act, 2013 emphasizes fair compensation, rehabilitation, and resettlement for those whose lands are acquired.
- The Act mandates a Social Impact Assessment (SIA) to assess how the acquisition affects local livelihoods and communities.
- Section 16 of the Act allows affected persons to raise objections during the hearing conducted by the Collector.
- The right to livelihood is protected under Article 21 as part of the fundamental right to life.
- However, courts have held that individual hardship cannot automatically invalidate acquisition if it meets the test of public purpose and procedural fairness (e.g., Bangalore Development Authority v. R. Hanumaiah).
- The government must ensure adequate compensation and rehabilitation, especially where landowners are being completely dispossessed.
Judgement
- ‘A’ may not succeed in preventing the acquisition if the land is genuinely required for a public purpose and all procedural requirements under the LARR Act have been fulfilled.
- However, ‘A’ is entitled to enhanced compensation, and possibly rehabilitation and resettlement benefits, if he can prove that the land is his sole means of livelihood.
- If the acquisition was done without proper SIA, or without considering rehabilitation obligations, then ‘A’ can challenge the acquisition and may succeed in getting it set aside or stayed.
- Ultimately, the success of his challenge depends on whether the government followed due process, and if any rehabilitative alternatives have been offered to ‘A’.