SC stays order on Adani Ports grazing land

The Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside a Gujarat High Court order directing state authorities to reclaim 108 hectares of grazing land from Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone (SEZ) Ltd in Kachchh and return it to villagers.The Court noted that Adani was not heard either by the state government or the High Court before the order was passed. The apex court asked the state government to consider the company’s objections within two weeks and allowed the HC to proceed afresh in accordance with law. The High Court has three months to decide the case, with all parties directed to maintain the status quo on the land in the meantime.The dispute dates back to 2005, when 231 hectares of “gauchar” (grazing) land in Navinal village near Mundra port was allotted to Adani Ports. Villagers, led by Fakir Mamad Suleman Sameja, filed a PIL in 2011 after discovering the company had fenced the land, leaving them with only 45 acres for grazing.On July 5, 2024, the state government told the HC it would reclaim 108 hectares of this land and return it to villagers. Challenging the move, Adani argued that the HC’s order violated natural justice, noting it was never heard on the issue. The company said the villagers had already received compensation nearly 20 years ago — Rs 37.39 lakh plus a 30% premium — and substantial CSR investments had been made in the area.Adani further highlighted that it had invested over Rs 23,586 crore in the SEZ and provided employment to more than 18,000 people. About 14 acres of the land were already used for high-tension transmission towers, with another 50 towers planned to supply power to SEZ units. The company said reversing the allotment abruptly could cause “irreparable injury.”The High Court’s order builds on earlier rulings: in 2014, it noted the state had granted an additional 387 hectares for grazing, directing it to measure and hand over the land to the village panchayat. Villagers filed a contempt petition in 2015 when the government did not act, while the state also moved a review petition, claiming the total land was less than initially stated.