THE JHARKHAND STORY DESK
New Delhi, July 10: The Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed the order of the Gujarat High Court, which asked the state government to start the process of taking back about 108 hectares of pasture land given to the Adani Group company near Mundra port in 2005.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Vishwanathan considered the appeal of Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Limited (APSEZ) that it is necessary to stay this order in the interest of justice.
The bench said that a notice should be issued and a stay should be placed on the aforementioned order.
Gujarat govt had told HC it would take back 108 hectares of land
On July 5, the state government had informed the Gujarat High Court that it would reclaim approximately 108 hectares of land that had been allocated to the Adani Group’s company in 2005.
Also Read- Jharkhand News: Youth shot dead after brawl during boozing in Jamshedpur
In its order, the High Court noted that, considering the affidavit of the Additional Chief Secretary of the Gujarat State Revenue Department, it expected the concerned authorities and officers to complete the process in accordance with the law. The court scheduled the next hearing for July 26.
Residents of Navinal village in Kutch district had filed a public interest litigation in the High Court challenging the decision to allocate 231 acres of land to the Adani Group’s company.
Revenue department allotted 231 acres of land in 2005
In 2005, the Revenue Department of Gujarat allotted 231 acres of land to Adani Ports and SEZ Limited. For this, Adani Group paid more than ₹37.39 lakh with a 30% premium of ₹11.21 lakh.
The villagers came to know about the land being allotted in 2010, when APSEZ started fencing the land. The residents of the village approached the High Court through a PIL against the decision to allot 231 acres of land to Adani Ports and SEZ Limited.
In 2014, the state government said that the Deputy Collector had passed an order to give an additional 387 hectares of government land for pasture purposes. After this, the High Court disposed of the PIL.
