High Court Halts Jindal Power’s Pipeline Project on Farmers’ Land

Raigarh (Chhattisgarh): In a significant legal intervention, the High Court has issued a stay order on Jindal Power’s gas pipeline project, which was being laid without proper land acquisition from farmers in the Tamanar region. The move comes after serious allegations that the company bypassed legal procedures and encroached upon privately owned farmland.

Farmers’ Rights Violated

Farmers in the region have long battled against industries encroaching on their land, often their sole source of livelihood. The Land Acquisition Act is supposed to protect landowners’ rights, yet Jindal Power proceeded to lay a pipeline on a farmer’s land without following due process. The court has now intervened to protect the farmer’s rights.

Dispute in Tamanar’s Libra Village

The case revolves around the village of Libra in Tamanar, where Jindal Power Limited began laying a gas pipeline. Shockingly, the company did not acquire the land legally but went ahead with digging operations on farmland. Specifically, parcels with survey numbers 512/7, 512/1kh, 375/1g, and 379/1 were targeted. Farmer Shambhu Chaudhary, the landowner, objected to this unauthorized construction. However, his protests were ignored, forcing him to take the matter to the High Court. After hearing the case, the court granted a stay order, halting the pipeline project.

Local Authorities Unresponsive

Before approaching the High Court, Chaudhary had lodged complaints with the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) and Tehsildar. Despite his pleas, no action was taken, leaving him with no option but to seek judicial intervention.

Official Reports Confirm Pipeline Plans

On July 19, 2024, the Tehsildar of Tamanar submitted a report stating that the pipeline construction was proposed on the disputed land, including survey numbers 512/7, 512/1kh, 375/1g, and 379/1. However, the report claimed that no actual construction had taken place. The High Court, taking note of the situation, has issued a stay order, which remains in effect until the next hearing.

This case highlights the ongoing struggle between industrial development and farmers’ rights, with the judiciary stepping in to ensure legal protocols are followed.