AHMEDABAD: Gujarat Government admitted in the Assembly that ArcelorMittal Steel India illegally encroached on government land at Hazira, in Gujarat's Surat, with proceedings underway under the Land Revenue Act but no land-grabbing case has been registered yet.
The admission came in a written reply to Congress MLA Amit Chavda during proceedings of the Gujarat Legislative Assembly, intensifying scrutiny over government land protection.
According to the response, out of H. 78-04-10 sq.m. of government fallow land, a massive H. 62-56-81 sq.m. was found encroached upon.
Consequently, the state issued 15 orders dated January 27 and February 11, 2025, initiating action under Section 61 of the Land Revenue Act, 1879, and moving to recover a hefty penalty of Rs 106.82 crore, signaling financial consequences even as legal proceedings grind on.
However, the controversy deepened further as the government disclosed that a probe by the Mamlatdar of Choryasi taluka of Surat District, detected encroachment across an estimated 173 hectares of unnumbered beach land and government fallow land, dramatically expanding the scope of alleged occupation beyond initial figures.
Acting on these findings, authorities registered nine cases against the company under Section 61 of the Land Revenue Act, 1879, with proceedings currently underway, indicating that the dispute has entered a prolonged legal and administrative phase.
When pressed on how much land had actually been reclaimed and how much fine recovered so far, the government stopped short of giving figures, stating that the process is still ongoing, thereby leaving the recovery status unclear.
The issue acquired sharper political edge when Amit Chavda invoked Gujarat’s practice of booking land-grabbing offences in cases of illegal occupation and demanded clarity on whether a land-grabbing case had been registered against the company.
In a crucial clarification, the government admitted that no land-grabbing case has been filed against ArcelorMittal Steel India, asserting instead that action has been confined to encroachment proceedings under Section 61 of the Land Revenue Act, 1879 an answer that is likely to fuel further political confrontation over differential legal treatment in high-profile land disputes.