PIL in SC seeks hybrid hearings in land compensation cases
New Delhi: A public interest litigation (PIL) has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking directions to introduce a hybrid mode of hearings in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Authorities (LARRAs).
The plea also seeks directions for the establishment of digital portals for LARRAs to provide online services, such as displaying case statuses, uploading orders and judgments, and publishing cause lists.
Further, it seeks the implementation of an e-filing system for LARRAs to streamline the submission of documents and reduce physical visits to LARRA offices.
The PIL said the implementation of the above measures would alleviate the logistical, financial, and psychological burdens on affected expropriated landowners, ensuring equitable access to justice.
It noted that the LARRAs were established for the purpose of providing speedy disposal of disputes relating to land acquisition, compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement under the new land acquisition act, The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
“LARRAs was to provide speedy disposal of disputes, the LARRAs have actually led to inordinate delays in the disposal of reference cases, besides causing insurmountable hardship to landowners,” said the plea, filed by advocate K.C. Jain.
For instance, in Uttar Pradesh, the state government has established 13 LARRAs to cover 75 districts, with each LARRA exercising jurisdiction over several districts, ranging from 4 to 8 districts, it added.
“At the current disposal rate of 960 cases per year, it would take more than ten years to clear the backlog of 10,468 pending cases by the LARRAs in Uttar Pradesh. This highlights the urgent need for procedural changes to expedite hearings and case disposals,” the PIL said.
Before the enforcement of the new land acquisition act, the powers of the reference court for determining compensation were vested in ‘civil court of original jurisdiction’ and consequently, compensation disputes were adjudicated by the district judiciary.
