Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

 

The Supreme Court refused to stay land acquisition process for Mumbai SEZ owned by Mukesh Ambani-led Reliance Industries, involving 8,000 hectares of land worth about Rs 6,000 crore.

A vacation bench comprising Justices B Sudershan Reddy and Aftab Alam, however, issued notices to the state of Maharashtra on a petition seeking transfer of the case pending in the Bombay High Court to the apex court.

Mumbai SEZ in its petition contended that if the High Court’s order was not stayed, it would cause a irreparable loss and injury to the petitioner as the entire land acquisition process would come to a naught since the government notification for acquisition of land would come to an end on June 8.

Mumbai SEZ was allotted to the Mukesh Ambani-led Reliance Industries on August 8, 2003 but the Company could acquire only 25 per cent of the land while it must have acquired 75 per cent of the total land.

The apex court, which had issued notices on the petition on June 1, today also dismissed the same.

Earlier, some of the land owners had challenged the Maharashtra Government notification for acquiring their land, in the High Court.

The land owners, including farmers, had also told the High Court that their land was being forcibly acquired against their will and in the acquisition no public cause was involved and it was a purely commercial venture for which Mr Ambani should negotiate with them directly.

They were also not satisfied with the compensation awarded to them for their land.

There had been violent protests in various states against the acquisition of land for SEZ. Nandigram and Nano car projects of Tatas had to be shifted out of West Bengal to Gujarat due to agitations, led by Railway Minister Mamta Banerjee.

UNI

"Loved reading this piece by kartikeya ?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"




Tags :

  Views  361  Report



Comments
img