In a development that could mark the end of Reliance Industries CMD Mukesh Ambani’s dream to build India’s biggest special export zone near Mumbai, Mumbai SEZ (MSEZ) is learnt to have withdrawn its review petition before the Supreme Court that sought to expedite land acquisition for its Maha Mumbai SEZ.
MSEZ’s decision to pull out its petition comes in the wake of the SEZ board of approval (BoA) refusing the company a further time extension for the land acquisition. The BoA recently directed the company to approach the Maharashtra government to begin the entire process afresh after it failed to mop up enough land within the stipulated timeframe. In June 2009, the SC order refusing to stay a Bombay High Court decision that declined to give any directive to state authorities to speed up land acquisition for the 10,000-hectare project came as a setback for the company. The Ambanipromoted MSEZ wanted the high court to direct the Raigad district administration to complete the land acquisition before the June 6 deadline under the Land Acquisition Act. It noted that the district authorities had not completed the process even two years after the Maharashtra government allowed the company to set up a multiproduct SEZ in the region.
The HC refused to grant relief by an order on May 22, 2009, against which the company filed an appeal before the SC. The apex court too in the first week of June rejected the company’s demand to stay the HC ruling. In its petition, Mumbai SEZ submitted that the HC failed to appreciate that the district collector was duty-bound to pass a consent award within two years of the land acquisition notification dated June 8, 2007, after declaration under Section. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in cases where land owners had voluntarily consented for sale of their land and entered into sale agreements. The consent awards must be passed before June 8, 2009. If not, the entire acquisition proceedings would lapse, causing grave financial loss to the petitioners who had already invested Rs 600 crore in the project, the petition noted.
Though the SC rejected the demand, it allowed the company to file a review petition which was subsequently submitted. This has now been withdrawn by the company.
Courtesy:- ET dt:- 08/12/2009
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete