2009 (9) TMI 921 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the transfer of Meikkal poramboke land to SIPCOT for industrial use.
2. Environmental impact and necessity of environmental clearance.
3. Alleged violation of principles of natural justice.
4. Impact on grazing land and adherence to government policies.
5. Encroachment issues and their resolution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Transfer of Meikkal Poramboke Land to SIPCOT for Industrial Use:
The court examined whether the transfer of Meikkal poramboke lands to SIPCOT for industrial purposes was arbitrary or constituted an abuse of power. The court noted that the lands in question were classified as Meikkal poramboke and vested with the government, giving the government the right to transfer them. The court found no unreasonableness in the notification transferring the land, as it aligned with the principle of sustainable development. The court emphasized that SIPCOT is a government undertaking aimed at promoting industrialization and generating employment, and thus, the transfer was justified.

2. Environmental Impact and Necessity of Environmental Clearance:
The petitioner argued that the transfer and development of the land would have adverse environmental impacts, including pollution and depletion of forest areas. The court acknowledged the importance of sustainable development and the right to a clean environment as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court directed SIPCOT to obtain environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forests before proceeding with development activities, ensuring that the environmental impacts would be considered and mitigated.

3. Alleged Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner contended that there was no public hearing before the transfer of the land, violating principles of natural justice. The court found that a public notice was issued, and statements were recorded from the public, indicating that due process was followed. The court also noted that the village panchayat had initially passed a resolution consenting to the transfer, although there were subsequent retractions. The court concluded that the principles of natural justice were not violated.

4. Impact on Grazing Land and Adherence to Government Policies:
The petitioner argued that the transfer of grazing land to SIPCOT violated government policies and would adversely affect the local community's livestock. The court noted that the government had made provisions for alternate grazing land and that SIPCOT had committed to developing additional grazing land. The court directed SIPCOT to develop 241.86 acres of land for grazing and to secure additional poramboke lands for the same purpose. The court found that the government's actions were in line with its policies and addressed the needs of the local community.

5. Encroachment Issues and Their Resolution:
The court addressed the issue of encroachments on the land, distinguishing between those who had cultivated the land and those who had put up huts. The court directed the government to remove the cultivators' encroachments in accordance with the law. For those who had put up huts, the court ordered the government to provide alternate housing and to construct sheds under available government schemes. The court emphasized the need to balance development with the rights and needs of the local community.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the transfer of Meikkal poramboke lands to SIPCOT, subject to the condition that SIPCOT obtains environmental clearance before proceeding with development activities. The court also directed SIPCOT to develop alternate grazing lands and to provide alternate housing for encroachers. The judgment balanced the need for industrial development with environmental protection and the rights of the local community.