New Delhi: The Supreme Court (SC) on Wednesday set aside the acquisition of nearly 7,000 acres of land by the Odisha government in Puri for a university to be set up by the Vedanta Foundation, now called the Anil Agarwal Foundation.
Upholding a 2010 Orissa High Court order that quashed land acquisition, the court noted that the land belonged to 6,000 families, included two rivers and abutted a wildlife sanctuary on the outskirts of Puri.
It also rapped the Odisha government for violating the “public trust principle” – which states that certain resources are protected for public use and the government is required to maintain them for such use – Anil To support the Agarwal Foundation.
An SC bench of Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari held that the acquisition was done with a “malicious” intention to show an “unfair favour” to the foundation and dismissed the appeal against the HC’s November 16, 2010 verdict, which allowed the acquisition was cancelled. ,
The Government of Odisha initiated land acquisition proceedings for the university between 13 December 2006 and 21 August 2007.
The bench noted that the state had also acquired two rivers – Nuanai and Nala – which would adversely affect hundreds of local families in the area.
“It is not commendable as to why the government offered such undue favor in favor of a trust/company. Thus, the entire acquisition proceedings and benefits that were proposed by the State Government were marred by prejudice and violation of Article 14 (right to equality) of the Constitution of India,” the bench said. Along with this, a fine of five lakh rupees was also imposed on the foundation.
The court directed that the amount should be deposited with the SC registrar within six weeks. Thereafter, the money will be transferred to the Odisha State Legal Services Authority.
Read also: SC’ knee-jerk reaction to Adani committee. Fair investigation needs time and analysis
SC’s reasoning behind the order
The bench listed the reasons behind its conclusion that the Odisha government had provided “undue benefit” and “undue leniency” to the Vedanta Foundation.
As per the memorandum of understanding signed between the Vedanta Foundation and the Government of Odisha for its establishment in July 2006, the state had given full autonomy to the foundation and its officials with respect to administration, admissions, fee structure, curriculum and faculty selection in the university. university. The MoU has been registered in the court.
It was noted that the proposed university would have full exemption from any reservation law of the state government.
As per the MoU, it also agreed to provide a four-lane road from the state capital Bhubaneswar to the proposed site, besides providing assistance in obtaining regulatory approvals from the University Grants Commission, All India Council for Technical Education etc.
The bench noted that the agreement further stipulated that the foundation would be consulted before making changes in the land use or zoning plan within 5 kilometers of the university boundary.
Further, the promise of exemption from all state levies/taxes/duties, viz. Value added tax, works contract tax, stamp duty and entry duty on R&D equipment, educational aids, laboratory equipment and instruments, and construction materials were also imposed from the date of signing of the MoU.
In addition, the government promised to assist the foundation in obtaining a no-objection certificate for the project from the state pollution control board, all approvals from the central government, as well as environmental clearance. It also assured an exceptionally large amount of electricity and water for the proposed university.
The court also noted that the Vedanta Foundation was a private company at that time, and the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 prohibited land acquisition for a private company.
The SC thus concluded that the acquisition was done by mala fide “exercise of the power by the State to acquire land and assign it to the foundation”, which, despite being a private company to acquire the land, had transformed itself into a public limited company. claimed to convert. in question”.
Vedanta Foundation changed its name to Anil Agarwal Foundation in September 2006, and reportedly converted into a public company by obtaining a fresh certificate of incorporation from the Registrar of Companies under section 23(1) of the Companies Act. .
The court also pulled up the state for not paying attention to environmental aspects and for crossing two rivers through the disputed land.
“It is not in dispute that two rivers named ‘Nuanai’ and ‘Nala’ are flowing from the disputed land, which were acquired by the State Government. How can the maintenance of the rivers etc. be entrusted to the beneficiary company.’ That said, it would be against the public trust doctrine.
The judgment also took cognizance of the wildlife sanctuary which is adjacent to the acquired land.
It upheld the HC’s observation that large-scale construction for setting up the proposed university would adversely affect the sanctuary, the entire ecosystem and the ecological environment in the locality.
The distance of the proposed university from the sea, which is around 2,000 metres, was also flagged by the court as an area of concern.
“It needs to be noted that the land was proposed to be acquired at the instance of a foundation/company and the State Government was dealing with land belonging to agricultural land owners. It needs to be noted that the Government holds a public trust and Land belonging to private landowners has to be dealt with, especially agricultural landowners as per law,” the court said.
‘malicious exercise’
Vedanta Resources Limited – with the Vedanta Foundation as the philanthropic arm – first applied to the Odisha government in 2006 to set up a university in the state on 15,000 acres of land.
The SC noted that a presentation was shown to the chief minister (Naveen Patnaik) of the proposal in April 2006 after a site had been selected for the university on the outskirts of Puri.
Subsequently, the Government of Odisha initiated proceedings for acquisition of 6917.63 acres of land on the Puri-Konark Marine Drive by issuing notifications under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 between December 13, 2006 and August 21, 2007.
However, after a batch of petitions were filed by aggrieved landowners, the Orissa HC quashed the acquisition notification and proceedings terming them as “illegal and malafide exercise of power”.
This prompted the Anil Agarwal Foundation to file an appeal in the apex court, calling the HC order “erroneous”.
Rejecting the foundation’s contention, Justice Shah, who authored the Supreme Court’s judgment, on Wednesday said: “It needs to be noted that the land acquired for the beneficiary foundation/company/trust is at a prime location for the proposed university.” (a) Two small rivers (by) belonging to the State/acquired by the State are passing through the Wildlife Sanctuary and the land in question.
Taking note of the way the state government handled the acquisition process, which left 6,000 families landless, “without any proper inquiry into the need for acquisition”, the Supreme Court observed that the HC has rightly considered writ petitions, including public interest litigations Did. aggrieved party.
The Supreme Court held that acquisition can be set aside if the process is vitiated by non-compliance of statutory provisions and not merely because some people did not file objections or accepted meager compensation or even compensation Also accepted.
According to the Supreme Court, the entire process of land acquisition including the selection of land was done by the Company and not by the State.
The subsequent conversion from a private company to a public company was an attempt to evade statutory provisions under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Supreme Court said, adding, “This was done to overcome the view of the Law Department of the State that a private The company cannot acquire the land after the offer was made”.
The judgment referred to this conversion of the company as a “malicious practice on his part”.
(Editing by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)
Read also: SC seeks to replace ‘sealed cover’ with ‘public interest immunity’. all about the new process