The Calcutta High Court on Friday struck down Mamata Banerjee?s flagship legislation to regain control of 997 acres leased to Tata Motors in Singur. Justices Pinaki Chandra Ghosh and Mrinal Kanti Chowdhury termed the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act ?unconstitutional? and ?void?, setting aside a single-judge verdict which had earlier upheld the legislation.
The Trinamool Congress had come to power promising it would return 400 acres to farmers who had unwillingly given up land for the Tata Nano project. The plot, leased to Tata Motors in 2006 when the Left Front government was in power, was meant for a factory to build the Nano. After being ousted from Singur in October 2008, the Tatas moved the project to Sanand in Gujarat, where the Nano is being manufactured now.
Friday?s verdict pointed out that Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Act were unconstitutional since they went against the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The state government has two months to challenge the verdict in the Supreme Court and has been barred from distributing any land till then.
Section 3 of the Singur Act says the land will be vested with the state government free of any lease or allotment. Section 4 says vesting of the land with the state government includes any structure standing on the land. The section also says Tata Motors and all vendors to restore vacant possession of the land kept in their possession in favour of district magistrate, Hooghly. Section 5 says the amount of premium paid respectively by the vendors shall be refunded after deducting the amount of arrears of rent left unpaid by them. It also says the amount of compensation would be adjudged and determined by the district judge, Hooghly.
Banerjee refused to comment on the order, merely saying the law would take its own course. ?I am liable to give back land and I will do the needful.? Government prosecutor Kalyan Bandopadhyay said the state will move the Supreme Court. A Tata Motors spokesperson said the company would have to study the order while the firm?s counsel Samaraditya Paul said: ?I think they have got justice and should be happy.? The Tata Motors scrip rose around 11 AM when the verdict was announced but closed down 0.44% at R247 on the Bombay Stock Exchange.
The verdict comes at a time when the Union government is in the process of formulating legislation for land acquisition. Industries have found it increasingly tough to acquire land for projects due to sporadic violence.
In September, 2008, the majority of villagers voted against the Maha Mumbai SEZ in a referendum at 22 villages in Maharashtra’s Raigad. In 2010, farmers in Uttar Pradesh’s Dadri sought to reclaim land acquired from them for a power plant being built by Reliance Power after an order by the Allahabad High Court permitting the farmers to do so.
A CMIE study shows that among the top 20 projects shelved last year, eight suffered from land-related issues. In West Bengal, the forced acquisition of land from farmers and inadequate compensation paid to them were key reasons for the defeat of the Left Front.
The West Bengal Assembly passed the Singur Bill on June 14, 2011 and Tata Motors challenged its constitutional validity in the high court the next week. In his verdict on September 28, 2011, justice IP Mukerji had upheld the validity of the Act, although he did point out some defects and suggested measures to correct them. Justice Mukerji had also observed that Hooghly district officials had ?exceeded their powers in taking possession of the land without any notice to the Tatas,? but maintained that the Act was ?constitutional and valid? and ?so is any action taken by the state? in exercise of the law. Subsequently, in November, Tata Motors challenged the verdict. The company?s legal counsel argued that it was untenable since it could not be reconciled with the Land Acquisition Act, a central law, and that there wasn?t adequate ?public purpose? in seizing Tata Motors’ property as is essential for any acquisition.
