Adani Group Gets Relief As Supreme Court Halts Gujarat HC Land Reclamation Order

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court provided relief to the Adani Group by halting the Gujarat High Court's decision. This decision had allowed the Gujarat government to return 108 hectares of grazing land to villagers near Mundra port in Kutch district.

The bench, including Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan, stayed the order and issued a notice after hearing senior lawyer Mukul Rohatgi. Rohatgi argued that the High Court had passed its order without giving the company a chance to present its case.

Adani Ports' Challenge

Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Ltd (APSEZ) contested the Gujarat High Court's 5 July order. The order mandated returning 108 hectares of grazing land to farmers, which APSEZ opposed.

The case began 13 years ago when Navinal village residents filed a public interest litigation against the Gujarat government's decision. They opposed the allotment of 231 acres of grazing land to APSEZ.

Villagers' Victory

The Gujarat High Court ruled in favour of the villagers based on an affidavit from the additional chief secretary of the state's revenue department. The affidavit stated that nearly 108 hectares would be reclaimed from APSEZ and combined with government land to replenish 129 hectares of grazing land.

This decision followed an April 2024 directive from a division bench of the Gujarat High Court, instructing the additional chief secretary to find a solution for the villagers' concerns.

Historical Context

The dispute dates back to 2005 when the state revenue department first allotted land to APSEZ. Villagers only became aware of this allocation in 2010 when APSEZ started fencing off the area.

The villagers contended that this allocation left them with only 45 acres of grazing land, which was insufficient for their needs. They also argued that allocating communal resources like grazing land to APSEZ was illegal.

Legal Proceedings

In 2014, after assurances from the state government about providing additional grazing land, the Gujarat High Court disposed of the initial PIL. However, when these assurances were not met, a contempt petition was filed against the government in the High Court.

In 2015, the state government submitted a review petition arguing that only 17 hectares were available for allocation to the panchayat, further complicating matters.

"He (Mukul Rohatgi) states that though counsel for the petitioner was present before the High Court and attempted to make submissions, he was not heard by the High Court. Issue notice, and there shall we stay the impugned order," Justice Gavai remarked during proceedings.