Intent In Demand For Land

 

 

 

THROUGH the judgment of the case – Anil Agarwal Foundation Etc. v. State of Orissa and others and a bunch of civil appeals, delivered on April 12, 2023, by Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari, at the Supreme Court, the Court has stated that the appellant-M/s Vedanta Resources Ltd. wants to acquire lands, which are agricultural lands belonging to 6000 families and their only source of livelihood, which cannot be compensated in terms of money, therefore appellant’s proposal made now has to be rejected outright. Under the new proposal, the appellant was ready to confine to acquisition of 3,837 acres of land only and willing to exclude the lands belonging to 7 land losers, who have filed the writ petitions against the acquisition proceedings and /or land-owners before the SC and/or the land belonging to the land losers before the SC is concerned, it will strengthen the Court’s finding that there was no proper inquiry with respect to the requirement.

As has been already observed, initially, 15,000 acres were proposed to be acquired, which is now reduced to 3837 acres. Meaning thereby, the proposal was for exaggerated demand. This was mala fide intention on the part of the appellant Company/foundation. At this stage, it was required to be noted that it was the specific case on behalf of the original writ petitioners, more particularly, the Public Interest Litigation petitioners that if such a huge land would have been acquired and/or even the lands, which are already acquired would be misused and/or put to use for some other purpose like mining activities etc. The most important aspect, which is required to be considered is the non-application of mind by the State 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 rivers would be said private company, which would violate the Doctrine of Public Trust.

Even requiring the beneficiary company to maintain the flow of those two rivers may also affect the residents of the locality at large. The Supreme Court has also noted that just across the road, there is a Wildlife Sanctuary, which is just adjacent across the road to the proposed University and the lands acquired. Therefore, large scale construction for the establishment of the proposed University as observed by the High Court will also adversely affect the Wildlife Sanctuary, entire Eco system and the ecological environment in the locality. It is a duty of the State to protect the Wildlife Sanctuary and it may affect the entire Eco system and the ecological environment in the locality. It is also required to be noted that even the distance of the sea from the proposed Vedanta University is approximately 2000 meters. Merely because the Balukhand Wildlife Sanctuary is separated from the proposed site by a highway – Puri-Konark Marine drive, cannot be a ground to acquire the huge lands for the proposed university and as rightly observed by the HC, the same will adversely affect the Wildlife Sanctuary and the entire Eco system and the ecological environment in the locality. These aspects have been not considered at all and /or by the State Government and/or the Collector and/or the appropriate authority even while considering the proposal and/or even the objections under section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Even otherwise, there is non-application on the part of the State Government on the requirement of the lands by the beneficiary company. It is required to be noted that the lands were proposed to be required at the instance of one foundation/company and the State Government was dealing with the lands belonging to the agricultural landowners. It is also required to be noted that the Government is holding a public trust and has to deal with the lands belonging to private landowners, more particularly, agricultural landowners in accordance with law.

The 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 university. Even no proper inquiry seems to have been initiated by the Government/Collector while considering the proposal by the beneficiary company.

The SC has also noted that initially, 15,000 acres of agricultural land was sought to be acquired for the proposed university. Ultimately, approximately, 8,000 acres of land belonging to the private landowners / agricultural landowners came to be acquired. The State Government has also handed over the possession of approximately 495 acres of land belonging to the State Government, including the Gochar lands etc. which could have been used for the other public purpose and even for the Gochar lands also. The SC has stated that it cannot appreciate as to why the State Government offered several undue favours in favour of one trust/company. Thus, the entire acquisition proceedings and the benefits which were proposed by the State Government were vitiated by favoritism and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. According to the apex court, it was more than satisfied that the Orissa HC did not commit any error and in fact, the HC was justified in setting aside the entire acquisition proceedings which has been vitiated by the non-compliance with the statutory provisions under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Rules, 1963 and vitiated by mala fides and favouritism and is a clear case of the non-application of mind on relevant aspects. The Supreme Court has expressed that it is in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court.

On November 16, 2010, through the impugned judgment, which has been now upheld by the Supreme Court, the Orissa High Court had allowed the three writ petitions and quashed the land acquisition proceedings and the awards passed in those proceedings in favour of the appellant and directed that the possession of the acquired lands shall be restored to the respective land-owners against refund of the amount of compensation paid to them. The High Court 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.