The Supreme Court upheld its 2010 judgment where a land acquistion proceedings initiated by the Odisha Government to acquire about 6000 acres of the land for the proposed Vedanta University was quashed by the Odisha University.
The proposed University was to be headed by mining baron and chairman of Vedanta Resource Ltd Anil Agarwal.
A bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice Krishna Murari have dismissed the appeal filed by Anil Agarwal Foundation which challenged the judgement by High Court quashing the proceedings for violating the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894.
The Supreme Court, agreeing with the view of the High Court, noted that the dispute in this case was related to nearly 6000 acres of land belonging to about 6000 families, which in short meant displacement of approximately 30,000 people.
The court noted that the entire process was aimed for the benefit of one company amd most important of the things was that the the lands were agricultural lands.
The Court found that the entire acquisition proceedings were initiated at the instance of the Vedanta Foundation(later Anil Agarwal Foundation) in April 2006.
It was also found that the land in Puri district was identified by the company and not by the Government of Orissa.
As the acquisition proceedings were hit by Section 44B of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, which specifically bars the acquisition proceedings for a private company unless it is a government company it had to be halted.
Though the company claimed that it was later converted into a public company, the Court noted that when at the relevant time it was a private company, the lands in question could not have been sought to be acquired by it.
The proceedings were found to have violated the provisions of Sections 39, 40 and 41 of the Act, 1894 read with Rules 3(2) and (4) of the Land Acquisition Rules, 1963.
Non-application of mind to environmental aspects; two rivers also acquired for the company
The Court noted that this was an absolute wrong on the part of State Government from the environmental aspect.It was also noted that there were 2 rivers passing named Nuanai and Nala through the land in question.
The court questioned as to how can the maintenance of the rivers be handed over to the beneficiary company?
The court further added that 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.
The court also said that asking the beneficiary company to maintain the flow of above two rivers may also affect the residents of the locality at large.
The Court also said that there is a wildlife sanctuary near the proposed site. The large-scale construction for the establishment of the proposed university will also adversely affect the Wildlife Sanctuary, entire Eco system and the ecological environment in the locality.
The Court was also surprised to note that the State Government granted several relaxations to the University like total autonomy was given with administration, admission, fee structure, curriculum and faculty selection;
It also gave it complete immunity from any reservation pertaimning to laws of the State Government;
It was to be provided all assistance in getting regulatory approvals from UGC, AICTE etc.;
Not only this the Government hasd also agreed to provide 4-lane road from Bhubaneshwar city to the proposed site.
Surprisingly, a promise was made to exempt all state levies/ taxes/ duties namely, viz. VAT, Works Contract Tax, Stamp Duty and Entry tax on R&D equipment, educational aids, lab equipment and tools, and construction materials along with promise to assist the Foundation in obtaining NOC from State Pollution Control Board and all clearances from the Central Government.
It was said that assistance shall be provided to the Foundation in arranging rapid EIA and EMP for the project;
They were also promised extraordinary huge amounts of electricity and water.
The Court observed such discrepancies and said it is surprised why the Government offered such an undue favour in favour of one trust/ company.
Observing this the bench said that the acquisition proceedings and the benefits, which were proposed by the State Government were vitiated by favouritism and were violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The Court after dismissing the appeals, has directed Anil Agarwal Foundation to deposit cost of Rs 5 lakhs with the Registrar of the Supreme Court within a period of six weeks , the same be transferred to the Orissa State Legal Services Authority.