India's Supreme Court upheld the Odisha High Court's 2010 judgement to quash the state government's efforts to acquire approximately 6,000 acres of land to establish a university.
The top court slammed the state administration, saying "undue favour" was shown to Vedanta and that the entire purchase process and advantages presented by the state government were "vitiated by favouritism."
A bench of Justice MR Shah and Judge Krishna Murari also slapped a £4,886 fine on the Anil Agarwal Foundation, which must be deposited with the top court's registrar within six weeks.
“It is not appreciable why the government offered such an undue favour in favour of one trust/company. Thus, the entire acquisition proceedings and the benefits, which were proposed by the state government were vitiated by favouritism and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India,” the bench said.
In stinging remarks, the apex court said the entire acquisition proceedings came to be initiated at the instance of the Vedanta Foundation.
Vedanta foundation was later renamed Anil Agarwal Foundation.
“The manner in which the state government dealt with and acquired agricultural lands belonging to 6,000 families and as it in fact favoured the private limited company, which was subsequently alleged to have been converted to a public company and that too without holding any proper inquiry to the need etc., we are of the opinion that the High Court has rightly entertained the writ petitions including the Public Interest Litigation petitions,” the bench said.
The top court said the initiation of land acquisition proceedings, right from selection of the land was by the company and not by the state government.
The most important aspect, which is required to be considered is the “non-application of mind” by the state government on the environmental aspects and the passing of two rivers through the acquired lands in question, the court said.
“It is not in dispute that through the lands in question two rivers namely ‘Nuanai’ and ‘Nala’ are flowing, which as such were acquired by the state government. How the maintenance of the rivers etc. can be handed over to the beneficiary company.
“If the lands in question are continued to be acquired by the beneficiary company, the control of the rivers would be with the said private company, which would violate the Doctrine of Public Trust. Even requiring the beneficiary company to maintain the flow of the above two rivers may also affect the residents of the locality at large,” the bench said.
The apex court also noted that there is a wildlife sanctuary which is just adjacent across the road to the proposed university and the lands acquired.
(PTI)
A protestor is detained by the police during a demonstration against the proposed site of the new Chinese Embassy, outside Royal Mint Court, in London. REUTERS/Carlos Jasso. 
