CASE ANALYSIS: VIJAY BANSAL AND OTHERS V.

STATE OF
HARYANA

SUBMITTED TO SUBMITTED BY
DR. ARCHANA GHAROTE SUNNY KARTIK
TOPPO
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, SEMESTER-IV SEC -
B
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ROLL NO.- 170
HNLU, Raipur

“HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, NAYA RAIPUR

(C.G.)”
 DECLARATION

“I thusly pronounce that, this project submitted for Hidayatullah National Law University
(HNLU), Chhattisgarh is unique and not counterfeited without references. It is written in the
most natural sounding way for me as obscure from well-established realities subsequent to
perusing a variety of articles, diaries and books identified with this point. It is my own just as
pursue proficient assessment which till now, I comprehend and ready to communicate after
the examination.”

- Sunny Kartik Toppo

 CASE ANALYSIS: VIJAY BANSAL AND OTHERS V. STATE OF
HARYANA

INTRODUCTION
This research paper deals with a landmark case law related to the concept of environmental
impact assessment

What is Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)?

A planned development project or activity is assessed for its possible environmental and
social impacts using a procedure called an environmental impact assessment (EIA).

The goal of EIA is to ensure that potential negative impacts on the environment and human
health are identified and avoided or mitigated through appropriate design and management
measures.

EIA typically involves a series of steps, including scoping, baseline data collection, impact
prediction and evaluation, and development of mitigation measures. The process involves the
participation of various stakeholders, including project developers, government agencies,
local communities, and environmental groups. EIA helps decision-makers to make informed
choices about the potential environmental and social implications of a project and can be used
to inform regulatory decisions, project design and management, and public policy
development.

The case of Vijay Bansal and Others v. State of Haryana and Others, is a landmark case
in environmental law. The case dealt with issues of land acquisition and compensation, but
also raised important questions about the relationship between development and
environmental protection and the environmental impact assessment.

FACTS
The state of Haryana had acquired land from the petitioners for the purpose of developing a
new township. The Land Acquisition Act of 1894, which permits the government to
purchase private land for public uses, was used to acquire the site. However, the petitioners
argued that the acquisition was not for a genuine public purpose, but was done primarily to
benefit private builders.

The petitioners also argued that the compensation provided by the government was
inadequate and did not take into account the true value of the land. They claimed that their
land was fertile and had been in their families for generations, and that they had not been
given a fair opportunity to negotiate the terms of the acquisition.

ISSUES
The case was heard in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, and several issues were raised
relating to environmental law.

 The first issue was whether the acquisition was done for a genuine public purpose.
The Court held that the purpose of the acquisition was not genuine, as it was done
primarily to benefit private builders. The government had failed to show that the
purchase was required for the greater benefit, and the builders had had improper
influence over the decision-making process, according to the court. The Court also
observed that the acquisition would have significant environmental consequences.
The land in question was fertile and had been used for agricultural purposes for
generations. Loss of agricultural land as a result of the acquisition would be
detrimental to the local economy and food security. Additionally, the new township
would generate significant traffic and pollution, which would have negative impacts
on air and water quality.
 The second issue raised in the case was whether the compensation provided by the
government was fair and reasonable. The Court held that the compensation provided
was inadequate and did not take into account the true value of the land. The Court
observed that the government had relied on outdated methods for assessing the value
of the land, and had failed to take into account its true economic and environmental
value.

JUDGEMENT
The Court ordered the government to pay the petitioners a higher amount of compensation
that reflected the true value of their land. The Court also directed the government to conduct
a fresh assessment of the land and to ensure that any future land acquisitions were done only
for genuine public purposes.
IMPACTS LAID DOWN
The case of Vijay Bansal and Others v. State of Haryana and Others had a significant
impact on environmental law in India. The case raised important questions about the
relationship between development and environmental protection, and highlighted the need for
a more holistic approach to land acquisition.

The necessity of public input in discussions about land use and development was also
highlighted by this case. The government decided to purchase the land without consulting the
petitioners or any other interested parties, the Court said. The Court stressed the need for
increased accountability and openness in the procedures used to make decisions on land use
and development.

Lastly this case also had a significant impact on compensation law in India. The Court held
that compensation provided for land acquisitions must take into account not only the
economic value of the land, but also its environmental and social value. The Court
emphasized the need for a more comprehensive approach to compensation, which takes into
account the full range of impacts that land acquisitions can have on communities and the
environment.

CONCLUSION
The case of Vijay Bansal and Others v. State of Haryana and Others is a landmark case in
environmental law. The case highlighted the need for a more holistic approach to land
acquisition and development, which takes into account the full range of environmental and
social impacts. The case also emphasized the importance of public trust doctrine.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
 Indiankanoon.Org, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/837828/.
 Vijay Bansal Petitioner v. State of Haryana and Others S, Judgment
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/581180032713e1794796c79f.