Odisha Land Scam Triggers Fear of Investor Deception
Odisha land scam shows how poor farmers lost land while values soared
The complaint raised by villagers of Khadagprasad and Khurunti in Odisha’s Dhenkanal district has drawn attention because it touches three sensitive areas at once: land rights of poor farmers, the role of financial regulators, and the trust of public investors. Such cases matter because SEBI exists to protect investors from misleading disclosures and unfair practices by listed companies. When a listed firm or its related entities show large gaps between acquisition value and later declared value of assets, regulators are expected to check whether disclosures were clear, fair and truthful.
Land acquisition disputes linked to stalled industrial projects are not new in India. Across several states, power and steel projects announced in the 2000s failed due to funding stress, coal shortages, or policy delays. When these projects collapsed, land often remained locked with government agencies or companies, leaving farmers without land, jobs or compensation. That is why Parliament brought Section 101 into the 2013 Land Acquisition Act. The aim was simple: if land is not used within five years, it should go back to the original owners so they can rebuild their lives.
In this case, the land was acquired by IDCO for Lanco’s power plant between 2008 and 2010. At that time, compensation rates in rural Odisha were low, and many farmers accepted them only because of promises of stable jobs and business work. Similar promises were made in other power projects in Odisha, Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand during that period. When these promises failed, affected families often slipped into debt, as land was their only steady income source.
The bankruptcy of Lanco Group is also relevant. Lanco was once among India’s largest private power producers but collapsed under heavy debt. During liquidation under NCLT, the main goal is to recover money for lenders. However, legal experts often point out that liquidation does not cancel other laws, including land return provisions and state land policies. If agricultural land is transferred at very low values without proper checks, it can raise questions of fairness and legality.
The villagers’ concern about undervaluation is serious because land value is not just a private matter. Stamp duty and capital gains tax are major sources of public revenue. When land is shown at a low price, governments lose money that could be used for schools, hospitals and roads. Valuation gaps of many times, as alleged here, usually attract scrutiny from tax authorities and market regulators in other cases across India.
From an investor’s point of view, asset valuation matters because shareholders rely on company disclosures to judge true worth. If land is acquired through indirect routes and later valued much higher in filings, investors may feel misled. SEBI has acted in past cases where companies failed to properly disclose related party transactions or used complex structures to hide real costs and benefits. That is why villagers believe this case goes beyond a local land fight.
The environmental fears raised by villagers also reflect a wider pattern in Odisha. Dhenkanal and nearby industrial belts have long faced pollution issues due to coal-based plants, sponge iron units and mining activity. Studies by pollution control boards have shown that high particulate matter levels directly affect children and elderly people. The Brahmani River has been flagged in official reports for industrial discharge. Any new project in such zones normally requires strict environmental clearance, public hearings and impact studies.
The mention of elephant corridors is not symbolic. Odisha has reported repeated human-elephant conflicts where industrial activity blocks natural movement paths. Courts have earlier intervened in similar cases to protect wildlife corridors, recognising them as vital for ecological balance.
What makes this case unusual is the number of institutions involved. IDCO, NCLT, SEBI, tax authorities and stock exchanges all have separate roles, yet their actions intersect here. When coordination fails, ordinary citizens often suffer. The villagers’ appeal to the Prime Minister and senior officials shows how long they have waited for relief through normal channels.
Shri Narendra Kumar Sahoo’s statement reflects a wider fear among rural communities. Many people now hesitate to give land for projects because past experiences have left them landless and jobless. If such disputes remain unresolved, future industrial development may face stronger resistance on the ground.
At its core, the issue is about trust. Farmers trusted promises of development. Investors trust market disclosures. Citizens trust regulators to act fairly. When land meant for a public purpose turns into a source of alleged private gain, that trust weakens. The villagers of Dhenkanal are asking not only for land or money, but for accountability. Their demand places the spotlight on how India balances growth with justice, and how institutions respond when that balance appears to break.
