Express News Service
NEW DELHI: In a significant order, the Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed appeals filed by Odisha government and Anil Agarwal Foundation and upheld Orissa High Court’s 2010 decision of quashing the land acquisition for establishing Vedanta University along Puri-Konark marine drive.
The acquisition was of about 6,000 acres of land belonging to about 6,000 families that affected approximately 30,000 people. The SC noted that the entire acquisition proceedings came to be initiated at the instance of the Vedanta Foundation and not by way of the state.
It further said that Anil Agarwal Foundation’s act of changing the status of the company from private to public company was a “mala fide exercise”. While dismissing the plea, the SC imposed a cost of Rs 5 lakh to be deposited by Anil Agarwal Foundation with the court registrar within a period of six weeks. Pursuant to the deposit, it directed transferring of the same to Odisha State Legal Services Authority. Taking note of the fact the Odisha government had acquired the land in utter disregard to the relevant provisions of the Act and rules, a bench of Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari said there was total non-application of mind by the state. “The state government could not have considered the proposal from only one beneficiary/ trust. There may be other public trusts/companies who might be interested in establishing such a university. Even no proper inquiry seems to have been initiated by the government/collector while considering the proposal by the beneficiary company,” the apex court said. Castigating the Odisha government, the SC said the most important aspect, which is required to be considered is the non-application of mind by the government on environmental aspects and passing of two rivers from the acquired lands in question.
“It is not in dispute that from the lands in question, two rivers namely ‘Nuanai’ and ‘Nala’ are flowing which as such were acquired by the state government. How the maintenance of the rivers etc. can be handed over to the beneficiary company. If the lands in question are continued to be acquired by the beneficiary company, the control of the rivers would be with the said private company which would violate the Doctrine of Public Trust. Even requiring the beneficiary company to maintain the flow of above two rivers may also affect the residents of the locality at large,” the bench observed.
In 2010, the Orissa HC while quashing the impugned land acquisition proceedings including the notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6 and the awards passed in the Land Acquisition Proceedings for the acquisition of land in favour of Anil Agarwal Foundation had said that the same was in “flagrant violation” of the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The HC had also directed for restoring the possession of acquired lands to the respective land owners. The landowners were also directed to refund the amounts received by them as compensation or otherwise in respect of their lands.
The HC had also quashed the grant of government land in favour of the beneficiary company under Rule 5 of the Government Land Settlement Rules with a direction to the state government to resume the lands which were granted to the beneficiary company by way of lease.
NEW DELHI: In a significant order, the Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed appeals filed by Odisha government and Anil Agarwal Foundation and upheld Orissa High Court’s 2010 decision of quashing the land acquisition for establishing Vedanta University along Puri-Konark marine drive.
The acquisition was of about 6,000 acres of land belonging to about 6,000 families that affected approximately 30,000 people. The SC noted that the entire acquisition proceedings came to be initiated at the instance of the Vedanta Foundation and not by way of the state.
It further said that Anil Agarwal Foundation’s act of changing the status of the company from private to public company was a “mala fide exercise”. While dismissing the plea, the SC imposed a cost of Rs 5 lakh to be deposited by Anil Agarwal Foundation with the court registrar within a period of six weeks. Pursuant to the deposit, it directed transferring of the same to Odisha State Legal Services Authority. Taking note of the fact the Odisha government had acquired the land in utter disregard to the relevant provisions of the Act and rules, a bench of Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari said there was total non-application of mind by the state. “The state government could not have considered the proposal from only one beneficiary/ trust. There may be other public trusts/companies who might be interested in establishing such a university.
Even no proper inquiry seems to have been initiated by the government/collector while considering the proposal by the beneficiary company,” the apex court said. Castigating the Odisha government, the SC said the most important aspect, which is required to be considered is the non-application of mind by the government on environmental aspects and passing of two rivers from the acquired lands in question.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });
“It is not in dispute that from the lands in question, two rivers namely ‘Nuanai’ and ‘Nala’ are flowing which as such were acquired by the state government. How the maintenance of the rivers etc. can be handed over to the beneficiary company. If the lands in question are continued to be acquired by the beneficiary company, the control of the rivers would be with the said private company which would violate the Doctrine of Public Trust. Even requiring the beneficiary company to maintain the flow of above two rivers may also affect the residents of the locality at large,” the bench observed.
In 2010, the Orissa HC while quashing the impugned land acquisition proceedings including the notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6 and the awards passed in the Land Acquisition Proceedings for the acquisition of land in favour of Anil Agarwal Foundation had said that the same was in “flagrant violation” of the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The HC had also directed for restoring the possession of acquired lands to the respective land owners. The landowners were also directed to refund the amounts received by them as compensation or otherwise in respect of their lands.
The HC had also quashed the grant of government land in favour of the beneficiary company under Rule 5 of the Government Land Settlement Rules with a direction to the state government to resume the lands which were granted to the beneficiary company by way of lease.
