Tatas oppose Singur law in HC

Joined by vendors and land sellers; court refuses to pass any order

Tata Motors and other stakeholders in its Nano project on Wednesday moved the Calcutta High Court challenging a law revoking the lease agreement for land they were allotted in Singur.

The stakeholders, including 54 Tata Motors vendors and farmers who willingly sold their land for the project, questioned the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011, which was notified yesterday.

Former Kolkata mayor and Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya represented the farmers.

Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, who was in New Delhi to finalise a financial package for the state, was unfazed by the move.

“The Tatas have gone to the court as it is their right. But we stand by the fact that the land in Singur belongs to the state government,” she said.

Tata Motors’ counsel, Samaraditya Pal, sought an injunction restraining the state government from acting in terms of the Act, particularly clause 4(3), which involves interference with the possession of land.

The company also sought status quo as on June 20, prior to the state government taking possession of the land. It also sought appointment of special officers for possession of the land.

Pal met the Chief Justice last night, as the case had to be moved as an unlisted motion because the notification came well after court hours.

While the news of the notification came around 7 pm, with Industry Minister Partha Chatterjee informing the media around 9 pm, the district magistrate arrived at the site to take possession of the land, following which Tata Motors informed the Chief Justice.

On Wednesday, Pal said in the court that Tata Motors had to relocate the project from Singur owing to lawlessness brought about by a political party which got an overwhelming mandate in the recent elections and had now passed this law.

He also harped on continuity of the state and said the company agreed to set up the factory in West Bengal at the behest of the state government (led by the Left Front), though it failed to maintain law and order despite committing to this in the lease agreement. He said the Act was based on “non-commissioning and abandoning” of the project by Tata Motors but was silent on reasons that forced the company to do so.

Pal said the land was not lying unutilised as the site had sheds and infrastructure which the company was maintaining. He said the land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and questioned whether the Act should be repealed.

Justice Saumitra Pal did not pass any order on assurances from Advocate General Anindya Mitra that there were adequate police personnel to ensure peace in the area. The hearing will resume tomorrow.