Advocates appeared:
For the Parties : Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AOR Mr. Abhisth Kumar, AOR Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv. Mr. Pranav Sachdeva, Adv. Mr. Chinamaya Mishra, Adv. Mr. Ajit Pudussery, AOR Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR Mr. Rutwik Panda, AOR Ms. Nikhar Berry, Adv. Ms. Anshu Malik, Adv. Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta, AOR Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Ms. Ruchi Kohli, AOR Mr. Shibashish Misra, AOR

What is the status of Anil Agarwal Foundation as a public company under the Companies Act, 1956 for land acquisition purposes? (!) (!) Whether the State Government can acquire land under Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for a private company in favor of establishing a non-existent university? (!) (!) Whether the acquisition proceedings complied with mandatory provisions of Sections 39, 40, 41 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Rules 3(2), 4 of Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963? (!) (!)

Key Points: - Supreme Court dismissed appeals, upholding High Court order quashing land acquisition proceedings for ~6000 acres in favor of Anil Agarwal Foundation due to non-compliance with Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and rules (!) (!) (!) - Acquisition initiated by private company (Vedanta/Anil Agarwal Foundation) identifying land, with MoU signed on 19.07.2006 when it was private, violating Section 44B (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - No proper Land Acquisition Committee under Rule 3; Core Committee not substitute; no inquiry/report under Rule 4 on suitability, negotiations, excessiveness (!) (!) (!) - Beneficiary not valid public company; conversion from Section 25 private limited by guarantee lacked compliance with Companies Act sections like 23, 31 (!) (!) (!) - Section 6 declarations issued without Section 41 agreement or Rule 4(4) compliance; notifications violated Sections 39, 40 (!) (!) (!) - PIL maintainable for marginalized landowners (6000 families, 30,000 affected); public interest due to environmental impact near Wildlife Sanctuary, rivers under public trust (!) (!) (!) (!) - State offered undue favors/largesse to company (tax exemptions, autonomy, infrastructure); arbitrary, violative of Article 14 (!) (!) (!) - Non-application of mind on environmental aspects (rivers Nuanai/Nala, proximity to Balukhand Sanctuary); affects ecology, public trust doctrine (!) (!) (!) - High Court findings on 15 issues affirmed; entire proceedings vitiated from initiation, including awards, possession (!) (!) (!) - Costs of Rs. 5 lakhs imposed on Anil Agarwal Foundation (!)

What is the status of Anil Agarwal Foundation as a public company under the Companies Act, 1956 for land acquisition purposes? [p_121][p_159]

Whether the State Government can acquire land under Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for a private company in favor of establishing a non-existent university? [p_123][p_164]

Whether the acquisition proceedings complied with mandatory provisions of Sections 39, 40, 41 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Rules 3(2), 4 of Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963? [p_125][p_169]