Calcutta High Court Seeks WB Govt's Response On Plea Challenging Deocha-Pachami Mining Project For Alleged Violation Of Land Acquisition Act

The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday sought response from the State government and the West Bengal Power Development Corporation Limited (WBPDCL) in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition challenging the ongoing land acquisition for the Deocha-Pachami-Dewanganj-Harinsingha (DPDH) coal mine project on the ground that it violates Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency as prescribed under the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Land Acquisition Act, 2013) and the Rules made thereunder.

The petition moved by activist and economist Prasenjit Bose through advocate Jhuma Sen alleges that the proposed project breaches the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 and Rules framed thereunder, the West Bengal Land Reforms, Act, 1955 and the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. 

A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Srivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj on Tuesday observed, 

"We deem it proper to give an opportunity to the respondents to place their respective stand on record before considering the prayer for interim order."

Thus, the Court directed the West Bengal government and the WBPDCL to file their affidavit-in-opposition within 2 weeks. Thereafter affidavit-in-reply was ordered to be filed by the petitioner within one week. The matter is slated for further hearing on July 18. 

The petitioner further alleged that the the project in question may potentially lead to serious loss of land, livelihood and tradition for more than 4,314 project-affected families. The Court was also apprised that the petitioner had filed a set of questions regarding the coal mine project under the Right to Information ('RTI') Act, 2005 on March 3, 2022, at the Birbhum District Magistrate's office.

It was contended further that on April 18, 2022, the WBPDCL had responded stating that the environmental impact assessment for the project is yet to be undertaken and that the land in question was being procured under some official memorandum, which amounts to a clear violation of the 2013 land acquisition law.

"There is also no transparency about the status of the groundwater and surface water in the area; and how will those, including nearby rivers be impacted by the project or how will mining of coal, particularly with use of huge explosive to break the basalt barrier, pollute the surrounding area and its habitants or how the project planned to manage huge amounts of toxic waste or preserved biodiversity. All such clarifications could be obtained through an EIA (environmental impact assessment) and a DPR (detailed project report), none of which have been prepared so far as admitted by the responding authorities in the RTI response", the plea reads further. 

Labelling the proposed project as 'reckless and irresponsible act', petitioner contend further, 

"..a massive exploitation of a coal belt touted as the largest in Asia, without adhering to due process is potentially a reckless and irresponsible act, which needs to be prevented at any cost till all statute mandated regulations are followed properly. In the absence of SIA and EIA, anxiety and apprehension have incapacitated the regions' mostly indigenous population whose lives and livelihoods stand threatened". 

Accordingly, the petitioner prayed for directions to be issued to the respondent authorities to cease all activities and operations relating to land acquisition or the proposed DPDH coal mining projects being undertaken by the WBPDCL and the Birbhum district administration in the absence of statutory requirements.

On the other hand, Advocate General S.N Mookherjee opposed the petition by contending that the land had been acquired with the consent of the land owners and is thus not barred under the Land Acquisition Act. He also submitted that the land owners are being paid much higher compensation and even otherwise they have a right under Section 108 of the Act. Thus, he sought a short adjournment to place the stand of the State on record.

Case Title: Prasenjit Bose v. State of West Bengal 

Click Here To Read/Download Order