Supreme Court validates Orissa High Court ruling quashing land acquisition for Vedanta University

Supreme Court validates Orissa High Court ruling quashing land acquisition for Vedanta University

The verdict came in an appeal by Anil Agarwal Foundation, the beneficiary for whom the area was acquired

The Supreme Court has affirmed the 2010 Orissa High Court ruling that quashed the land acquisition of 6,000 acres for a proposed university by Vedanta, a mining company.

In the Anil Agarwal Foundation etc vs State of Orissa and Ors case, a bench of Justice MR Shah and Justice Krishna Murari also imposed a fine of Rs. 5 lakh on the appellant, Vedanta's Anil Agarwal Foundation. The amount is to be deposited with the Odisha State Legal Services Authority within six weeks.

Noting that two rivers passed through the land, the court made scathing observations against the State.

The judgment stated, "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. It is not in dispute that from the lands two rivers ‘Nuanai’ and ‘Nala’ are flowing, which were acquired by the State government. How the maintenance of the rivers can be handed over to the beneficiary company."

The bench observed, "The large-scale construction for the establishment of the proposed university as observed by the high court, will also adversely affect the wildlife sanctuary, the entire eco system, and the ecological environment in the locality. It is the duty of the State to protect these.”

The bench held that it appeared that undue benefits and largesse were proposed to be given to the appellants, without examining the proposals from other trusts.

Justice Shah and Justice Murari added, "It is not appreciable why the government offered an undue advantage in favor of one trust/company. The entire acquisition proceedings and the benefits proposed by the State government were vitiated by favoritism and were violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India."

Earlier, the High Court had directed that the possession of the acquired lands be restored to the respective landowners, along with a refund of the amount.

The Apex Court noted that the malafide intent of the foundation was revealed by the initial measure of land it had sought.

The Judges stated, "Initially, 15,000 acres was proposed to be acquired, which is now reduced to 3837 acres. Meaning thereby, the proposal was for exaggerated demand. This was malafide intention on the part of the appellant company/foundation."

While Senior Advocate C Aryama Sundaram appeared for the appellants, the State of Orissa was represented by Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi. The respondent landowners were represented by Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan.