Judges expressed their annoyance over the invocation of urgency clause under the land acquisition law. They took exception to taking over the land on which high-cost residential flats were being constructed.
Giving a dressing down to the Mayawati government for accommodating builders on forcibly acquiring crops rich farm land, the Supreme Court has thrashed the state saying it wouldn’t allow ‘Nandigrams’ to happen at any cost.
There had been enough blood shed over acquisition of land by the Left Front government in West Bengal for facilitating setting up the Tata’s Nano car project. Mamata Banerjee, who has come to power now, had led the agitation.
“We will not keep our eyes closed. You take it (agricultural land) from one side and give it to the other,” an anguished bench of justices P Sathasivam and AK Patnaik slammed the government during the hearing on petitions filed by Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority and real estate developers and builders including Supertech and Amrapali challenging the Allahabad high court order that quashed land acquisition notification.
Judges expressed their annoyance over the invocation of urgency clause under the land acquisition law. They took exception to taking over the land on which high-cost residential flats were being constructed.
On May 31 last Allahabad HC quashed acquisition of 170 hectares of land at Gulistan village in Greater Noida for industrial development.
“This has to go and if it does not go this court will step in to ensure that. It is development of one section of the society only,” the bench said.
“Whose residential use are these flats for? Who is building them? What are the prices? Judges raised many doubts over the intent behind this acquisition. “We want to go into details of the case. This urgency clause is not automatically invoked.... We do not want more Nandigrams in all states,” the top court added.
It wouldn’t “like a situation similar to Nandigaram where such steps to acquire land by invoking urgency clause under which farmers cannot raise objections led to large-scale protests and violence,” judges recalled and fixed July 5 for hearing a batch of appeals regarding the acquisition case.
However, Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority’s counsel contended that the acquisition was part of its “well-known” 2021 plan called the Industrial Development Plan.
Judges asked him whether the authority made any efforts all to find out if any other land which is not in agricultural use could be acquired for the purpose.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}