Sign In / Register
Make This My Home Page | Feedback |RSS
You are here: IE »   Story

Nano land acquisition: PIL intended for publicity, says High Court

  • Print
  • Mail This Article
  • Comments
  • Add to favorites
  • Tata Nano
    Tata Nano
    Petitioner had claimed allotment would render several farmers jobless, reduce agricultural production

    The Gujarat High Court on Monday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed by Rashtriya Kisan Dal chairman H K Thakar in the Nano land allotment issue.

    Chief Justice K S Radhakrishnan and Justice Akil Kureshi dismissed it, saying it was intended only for media attention and publicity.

    Thakar had filed a petition saying that the decision by the state government to allot land to Tata Motors was in violation of statutory provisions or regulations.

    He had contended that the allotment of land for the project would adversely affect the interest of farmers or agriculturists. The project would require substantial amount of electrical power and deprive farmers of the power required for irrigation and agriculture.

    The petitioner had also contended that the allotment of land will render several farmers jobless and reduce agriculture and milk production, as hundreds of acres of agricultural land will be converted into non-agricultural land.

    Ads by Google

    Thakar had also raised the question of concessions and interest free loans being extended to the Tatas from the state exchequer.

    Advocate General Kamal Trivedi, representing the state, had argued that the petitioner had no loucs standi. He referred to the Supreme Court order in the Balco employees Union vs Union of India and others in 2002 case. The advocate general submitted that the land allotted belonged to the state government and hence there was no constitutional or statutory violations.

    He further argued that the land had been allotted at a market rate of Rs 900 per sq metre and hence there was no loss to the government. He also denied that the state government had extended any loan to the Tatas.

    Earlier, the HC had dismissed two other petitions of farmers along with cost as they had demanded compensation pleading that it was their ancestral land and the state government had allotted it to the Tatas without paying them compensation.

    Comments
    Post comment

    Be the first to comment.

    Post a Comment
    Name:
    Email:
    Title:
    Maximum characters allowed     
    Comment:
    TERMS OF USE:
    The views, opinions and comments posted are your, and are not endorsed by this website. You shall be solely responsible for the comment posted here. The website reserves the right to delete, reject, or otherwise remove any views, opinions and comments posted or part thereof. You shall ensure that the comment is not inflammatory, abusive, derogatory, defamatory &/or obscene, or contain pornographic matter and/or does not constitute hate mail, or violate privacy of any person (s) or breach confidentiality or otherwise is illegal, immoral or contrary to public policy. Nor should it contain anything infringing copyright &/or intellectual property rights of any person(s).
    I agree to the terms of use.