बेबाक · Editorial
ਰਨਵੇਅ ਅਤੇ ਖੇਤਃ ਭਾਰਤ ਦੇ ਹਵਾਈ ਅੱਡੇ ਦੀ ਤੇਜ਼ੀ ਅਤੇ ਜ਼ਮੀਨ ਦੇਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਕਿਸਾਨ
ਜੇਵਰ ਤੋਂ ਰਾਜਕੋਟ ਤੱਕ, ਭਾਰਤ ਹਵਾਈ ਅੱਡੇ ਖੋਲ੍ਹ ਰਿਹਾ ਹੈ ਅਤੇ ਵਿਸਤਾਰ ਕਰ ਰਿਹਾ ਹੈ; ਪਰੀਖਿਆ ਇਹ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਜ਼ਮੀਨ ਦੇਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਕਿਸਾਨਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਭਾਈਵਾਲ ਬਣਾਇਆ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ ਜਾਂ ਦਹਾਕਿਆਂ ਤੋਂ ਮੁਕੱਦਮਾ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਛੱਡ ਦਿੱਤਾ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ।
ਜੇਵਰ ਵਿਖੇ ਵ੍ਹੀਲਜ਼ ਅੱਪ
ਸੋਮਵਾਰ ਨੂੰ ਜੇਵਰ ਦੇ ਨੋਇਡਾ ਅੰਤਰਰਾਸ਼ਟਰੀ ਹਵਾਈ ਅੱਡੇ 'ਤੇ ਲਖਨਊ ਲਈ ਇੰਡੀਗੋ ਸੇਵਾ ਨਾਲ ਵਪਾਰਕ ਉਡਾਣਾਂ ਸ਼ੁਰੂ ਹੋਈਆਂ ਅਤੇ ਯਾਤਰੀਆਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਸਨ
The field beneath
Behind every runway is a field that someone tilled. The image of land-losing farmers boarding the inaugural flight is genuinely moving, and it is meant to be: it says those who surrendered their soil are being recognised in the prosperity it carries. But symbolism is cheap and land is not. The question a republic must ask of every airport, expressway and industrial park is not how fast it rose, but whether the family that gave up its holding was made whole, fairly, promptly, and on terms it could contest in court. That is where the celebration and the law part company, and where this week offered a second, quieter headline that deserves equal billing.
The case for building
The case for the runway is strong and should not be caricatured. Connectivity is opportunity. The neighbours of the Rajkot terminal have been reported as benefiting in engineering, art-jewellery and Shapar-Veraval industrial clusters, alongside rising property values. A multi-modal hub at Jewar promises new access and economic possibilities, and Tripura's bid for international status for Agartala's MBB Airport seeks the connectivity larger metros take for granted. No one tilling a marginal plot owes posterity a veto over every public project. Development that lifts a region's floor is not charity to the poor; it is their due, and modern infrastructure is its scaffolding.
What the court said
Yet access bought by injustice is not progress; it is a transfer dressed as growth. This week the Supreme Court restated why. Reviewing land the Haryana government acquired nearly four decades ago, more than 1,500 acres at Panchkula for Sectors 24 to 28, later sold to individual buyers, the Supreme Court held that no government, and no one-time settlement deal, can curtail a citizen's right to move court. Successive authorities had increased the compensation payable to farmers, and the dispute stretched across decades. Read against Jewar, the message is plain: the farmer on the inaugural flight and the farmer still litigating in Panchkula are the same citizen. One was publicly included in the story of development; the other had to keep fighting for a day in court.
Both truths at once
The verdict is neither cynicism about airports nor applause for them. Both things are true: the runways are real achievements, and the bargain beneath them can still be unequal. A country can be proud of planning a major multi-modal hub and uneasy that compensation disputes can take decades and a journey to the Supreme Court. The test of this infrastructure decade is not the ribbon-cuttings, which are easy, but whether the ordinary land-loser's experience comes to resemble the passengers on the Lucknow flight rather than the litigants of Panchkula. On present evidence, too much still depends on who you are and where your field happened to lie.
Build, but settle first
The way forward is unglamorous and doable. Compensation should be settled and paid before possession, at transparent market value with a built-in share of the uplift the project creates, the kind of uplift now being reported around Rajkot's Hirasar. Every acquisition should carry a time-bound, independent grievance route that, as the Supreme Court has now affirmed, no settlement can foreclose. Each major project could publish a public dashboard: area acquired, compensation paid, cases pending, jobs promised, updated by the project authority. And the partnership offered symbolically at Jewar should be written into law as substance: a skilling guarantee, an equity or revenue share, or an annuity for the family that gave the land. Build the runways, but let the field beneath them keep its dignity, and its day in court.
ਉਦਘਾਟਨੀ ਉਡਾਣ 'ਤੇ ਸਵਾਰ ਕਿਸਾਨ ਅਤੇ ਪੰਚਕੂਲਾ ਵਿੱਚ ਅਜੇ ਵੀ ਮੁਕੱਦਮਾ ਚਲਾ ਰਿਹਾ ਕਿਸਾਨ ਇੱਕੋ ਨਾਗਰਿਕ ਹਨ।
At stake is whether compulsory land acquisition for public infrastructure protects property, livelihood, equality and access to an independent court.
Land Acquisition Justice Guarantee
Parliament should enact a Land Acquisition Justice Guarantee requiring every airport and major infrastructure acquisition to publish, before possession, a farmer-wise compensation, rehabilitation and benefit-sharing compliance statement under RTI-disclosable rules. It should also create a statutory fast-track land compensation bench or tribunal with independent judicial oversight, fixed timelines, and an explicit bar on any settlement or executive condition that waives a citizen’s right to approach court.
ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਸੰਵਿਧਾਨਕ ਅਧਿਕਾਰ
ਇਸ ਕਹਾਣੀ ਵਿੱਚ ਸੰਵਿਧਾਨ ਕੀ ਗਰੰਟੀ ਦਿੰਦਾ ਹੈNo person shall be deprived of property save by authority of law — a constitutional (legal) right, requiring fair procedure and, in practice, compensation.
ConstitutionalNo person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except by a fair, just and reasonable procedure established by law — read by the courts to include dignity, privacy, health, a clean environment and livelihood.
Fundamental RightThe State shall not deny any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws. Like must be treated alike; the law cannot be arbitrary.
Fundamental RightThe State shall take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services.
Directive PrincipleWhat this editorial rests on
Drawn from our live multi-newsroom feed — read the reporting at source.
ਅੰਦੋਲਨ ਵਿੱਚ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹੋਵੋ
ਇੱਕ ਵਾਰ ਵਿੱਚ ਇੱਕ ਨਿਡਰ ਸੰਪਾਦਕੀ-ਤੁਹਾਡੀ ਭਾਸ਼ਾ ਵਿੱਚ। ਨਾਲ ਹੀ ਸੰਵਿਧਾਨਕ ਪੁੱਛਣਾ ਜਿਸ ਦੀ ਪਾਲਣਾ ਕੀਤੀ ਜਾਣੀ ਚਾਹੀਦੀ ਹੈ।
An editorial is the considered opinion of The Mudda desk, argued from the sourced reporting above and written under our published persona, बेबाक. We name institutions and actors; we do not endorse or attack any political party. "The Mudda's Ask" is a citizen's good-faith policy proposal, grounded in the Constitution — not the platform of any party. Translations are faithful — no fact is added in any language. If we are wrong, we will say so. How we work →