Setback for Anil,HC scraps order for his Dadri project land

The HC bench also passed strictures against the manner in the which the Mulayam Singh Yadav government proceeded on land acquisition,saying it was ¿a colourable exercise of power to bypass rules¿ governing land acquisition for companies.

The RDPPL had made an application on January 19,2004 to the UP Chief Secretary,expressing interest in setting up a 3,000-3,500 MW gas-based thermal power station. On the same day,the company submitted another letter to the Collector requesting for acquisition of 2,500 acres.

Today’s order applies only to the land belonging to petitioners. In all,2,500 acres was acquired. Of this,over 800 acres belonged to farmers who had filed 42 petitions. In addition,a PIL filed by former Prime Minister V P Singh was also before the court. The bench said the Collector could proceed with the procedure for land acquisition after inviting objections from the public.

With the land acquisition notification quashed,petitioners are required to refund the compensation they had received.

But land owners who have no objection to the acquisition should say so when objections are invited. The Collector will decide on the objections of land owners who refund the compensation they received. The bench said the Collector may recover the compensation as arrears of land revenue from those who do not convey in writing their no-objection to the acquisition.

Dismissing the contention of the counsel of the RDPPL that land was acquired by the state government for public purpose,the bench said: “There is no material on record that the state,at any point of time before issuing the notification under Section 4 on 11/2/2004,identified any land or decided to acquire land for any power project… All actions leading to issuance of the notification under Section 4(1) were on the basis of the proposal submitted by the company. Thus,the acquisition in question cannot be termed acquisition for public purpose.”

The bench said the invocation of emergency powers of the state to acquire land without inviting objections of the land owners was illegal and the proceedings were vitiated. For land acquisition for a company,compliance of provisions of Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules,1963 is mandatory which was not at all done in the present case,the bench said.

Jafar Naiyer,who was appointed Additional Advocate General after the change of government,had told the court that amendments in the power policy were made solely at the behest of RDPPL. He had also said that the state support agreement was beneficial to the company while the state had been burdened with various obligations. The court,after taking into consideration all facts and circumstances,was of the view that all writ petitions,except the petition filed by V P Singh,deserved to be partly allowed with directions.