Dikhyaa Mohanty On Wednesday, the Supreme Court upheld an Orissa High Court decision from 2010 that had barred mining corporation Vedanta from acquiring 6,000 acres of land for a planned university. The appellant, Vedanta’s Anil Agarwal Foundation, was also ordered to pay costs of 5 lakh, which must be submitted with the Odisha State Legal Services Authority within six weeks, by a panel of Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari. The bench issued some harsh remarks on the State for its lack of application of mind in approving the property purchase because two rivers crossed the parcel in question.
“The State Government’s lack of attention to environmental issues and the passage of two rivers from the purchased properties in question is the most significant factor that must be taken into account. ‘Nuanai’ and ‘Nala’ rivers, which as such were purchased by the State Government, flow from the disputed territory, it is undisputed.How the beneficiary corporation may be given responsibility for maintaining the waterways, etc.,” the ruling noted. The bench noted that such a move would go against the principle of public trust and have an impact on both the local populace as a whole and the species in the surrounding sanctuary.
“As noted by the High Court, the planned university’s projected large-scale development will negatively impact the Wildlife Sanctuary, the overall eco system, and the ecological environment in the neighborhood. The Court emphasized that the Wildlife Sanctuary must be protected by the State since it may have an impact on the overall eco system and the ecological environment in the area. Relevantly, the bench determined that without considering comparable proposals made by other trusts, it seemed from the facts in the record that the appellants would receive unjustifiable advantages and generosity.
The Anil Agarwal Foundation, the beneficiary for whom the land was obtained, filed an appeal, and the decision was reached. The High Court had ordered that the individual landowners be given custody of the acquired property back along with a return of the money paid for them. The supreme court observed that the foundation’s original measure of land request demonstrated its fraudulent aim.
