In what could be a major setback for the Anil Ambani group, the Allahabad High Court on Friday in effect cancelled the acquisition of 2,500 acres of agricultural land for the group's Rs 25,000-crore gas-based Dadri power plant.
The court quashed a notification issued by the Mulayam Singh Government in 2004 that used certain “urgency” powers to acquire the land for the proposed 7,480 MW project. The court said the notification was issued bypassing a provision that was meant to invite objections from farmers.
A Division Bench of Mr Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr Justice Sudhir Agarwal passed the order acting on a group of writ petitions, filed by “illiterate” farmers and the former Prime Minister, the late Mr V. P. Singh, which claimed the petitioners were “forced to sign on certain documents (regarding land acquisition) and accept the meagre compensation offered by the Collector.”
The Court observed that though the State Government issued a particular notification claiming that the acquisition was carried out for ‘public purpose', the acquisition was instead done for a company.
The Court said though it is mandatory for a company to comply with the provisions of Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963, it “was not at all done in the present case”. According to the Rules, acquisition of agricultural land should be avoided as it is scarce and therefore cannot be diverted for non-agricultural purposes.
The court said farmers can now refund the compensation received. However, it gave the option to those farmers who have no objections to the acquisition to indicate it and seek exemption from the Collector on refund of the compensation.
Mr K.T.S. Tulsi, senior advocate and counsel for the petitioners, told Business Line that “the High Court has avoided a Singur-like situation. Farmers were determined not to part with their land and they were even willing to die for their land.”
This order would mean that if the Government wants the power project, it will have to acquire non-agricultural land in accordance with the land acquisition laws and by giving adequate compensation, he said. The court said the notification was a “colourable exercise of power by the State Government with an object to by-pass the provisions of” the laws concerned (the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Land Acquisition Rules). On the use of emergency provisions by the State Government, the Court said such powers are used only in extraordinary situations, adding that the State cannot invoke urgency powers as a substitute for lack of care.
No comments:
Post a Comment