High Court attaches costs on MoEF’s delay in filing counter affidavit on Tashiding HEP land acquisition case

GANGTOK, 29 Oct: With the Union Ministry of Forests having failed to file its counter affidavit within the stipulated time frame as provided by the High Court, the court has directed costs of Rs. 5,000 on the central ministry only after which it can now file its counter affidavit.
On 17 October, counsel for the central government, Karma Thinlay, sought more time for the Ministry to file its counter on a petition which challenges the method of land acquisition resorted to by the state for the Tashiding hydro project in West Sikkim. His submission was that the counter has to be prepared in New Delhi. The court then directed that the amount be deposited within 4 weeks. During the last hearing, the court had given 4 weeks as last opportunity to file the counter affidavit on behalf of the Ministry of Environment & Forests.
This came about in the petition filed by a retired Forest official, Thupten Kalden Bhutia which challenges the process of land acquisition and alleges violation of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the state respondents. The petition alleges unnecessary invocation of the urgency clause by which public hearing is dispensed with and more importantly, the petitioner has also challenged the “public purpose” grounds on which the land was acquired.
The land acquisition notification issued by the Land Revenue department dated 26 July 2010 and 26 May, 2010, which are being challenged, notify the acquisition of land for the 97 MW Tashiding hydro project by SPDC in the blocks of Tashiding II, Gerathang, Lebing, Chungbing and Omlok in West Sikkim. The notification further states that as there is urgency to acquire the land the section 5A of the Act will not apply.
This particular clause requires the state to first seek a hearing of the affected parties. Not only does the petitioner claim that he was not issued any notice on the acquisition he also challenges the claim of urgency on the part of the state. It is further alleged that the SPDC was only acquiring the land on behalf of the project developer, Shiga Energy.
It is stated that the petitioner’s ancestral property was acquired by the state for the project which is informed to be around 5 hectares in Tashiding. The petition first came up for hearing earlier in March this year.