The Supreme Court recently stayed a Gujarat High Court order to reclaim 108 hectares of grazing land allotted to the Adani Ports near Mundra port in 2005. The stay came after the Adani Ports appealed, arguing the High Court's decision violated natural justice by not hearing their counsel. The High Court's order followed a PIL by Navinal villagers, who claimed the land was a vital community resource. The state had promised additional grazing land, but it did not materialise, prompting legal challenges. Adani Ports contended that substantial investments and compensation were already made, and reversing the order would cause irreparable harm.
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court stayed a Gujarat High Court order directing the state government to resume the process of reclaiming nearly 108 hectares of grazing land allocated to an Adani Group entity in 2005 near the Mundra port. Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan issued the stay in response to an appeal from Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Ltd (APSEZ), asserting that the High Court's decision needed to be stayed to ensure justice.
On July 5, the State Government had informed the High Court of its intention to take back the grazing land previously given to APSEZ. This decision followed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by residents of Navinal village in Kutch district, who opposed the allocation of 231 acres of 'gauchar' (grazing) land to the Adani entity. The villagers argued that the allocation was illegal and detrimental to their community, which relied on the grazing land as a crucial resource. They highlighted that the village was left with only 45 acres of grazing land after the allotment to APSEZ.
In 2014, the High Court had closed the PIL after the state government claimed that the deputy collector had authorised an additional 387 hectares of government land for grazing. However, when this allocation did not materialise, the villagers filed a contempt petition. The state government then filed a review petition in 2015, arguing that only 17 hectares were available for allocation to the panchayat and proposing the remaining land be located nearly 7 km away, which the villagers opposed.
By April 2024, a division bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi directed the Revenue Department to devise a solution, prompting the state to inform the court of its plan to reclaim the land.
Representing Adani, senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi contended that the High Court's order was issued without hearing the company's counsel, thus breaching natural justice principles. He argued that the High Court had directed the implementation of an illegal order passed in violation of natural justice, despite the PIL being filed 13 years ago to recall or cancel a land allotment made over 20 years prior. Adani asserted that the villagers had already received compensation of INR 37.39 lakh, along with a 30% premium of INR 11.21 lakh for the land. The company had also made substantial investments in the area, including INR 23,586 crore by 2011, and provided employment to thousands, thereby establishing vested and statutory rights over the land.
Adani's appeal emphasised that the company had already used 14 acres of the land for high-tension towers and mapped out the remaining area for additional towers essential for power transmission to SEZ units. Reclaiming the land would cause irreparable harm to the company's operations. The Supreme Court's stay order came after noting the High Court's previous directives, including the instruction to measure and hand over the additional grazing land to the village panchayat, which the state failed to execute, leading to the contempt petition. The High Court's decision was challenged by the state government, which sought to recall the order due to the insufficient land availability.
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
