SC quashes Singur land buy for Tata Motors' Nano plant

Says law was flouted by the Left Front government in West Bengal in 2006

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that the acquisition of land in Singur by the Left Front government of West Bengal in 2006 for Tata Motors’ Nano car project was illegal and it had violated the procedure laid down by law.  

The court ordered a survey of the land in 10 weeks so it can be returned to the owners. The entire exercise is to be completed in 12 weeks.

“This is a landmark victory,” West Bengal Chief Minister, Mamata Banerjee said at a press conference. The state administration will meet on Thursday to work out a mechanism for returning land. The verdict is a shot in the arm for Banerjee, who has been fighting for the return of 400 acres of land to “unwilling” land owners of Singur since 2006.

Also Read: The Singur Saga: A Timeline

In 2006, the Left Front government had invoked the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 to acquire 997 acres in Singur for the Tata Motors project. However, of the 13,000 project-affected farmers, 2,000 refused to accept compensation cheques. An indefinite agitation backed by Banerjee, then Opposition leader, followed for return of land to “unwilling” farmers, which ultimately led to Tata Motors moving out of Singur.

Two judges, V Gopala Gowda and Arun Mishra, wrote separate but concurring judgments. Gowda wrote that the acquisition was in favour of Tata Motors and it could not be construed as being for public purpose. The acquisition was a “colourable exercise” of power, his judgment said. Misra, however, said it was for a public purpose, the fund coming from a government corporation and the project would generate employment in the state. But both agreed that the procedures were flouted in acquiring the land.

Also read: CPI-M Rules Out Apology For Singur Land Acquisition
 

It offered Communist Party of India (Marxist) state secretary, Surjya Kanta Mishra, the only face-saving opportunity. Mishra said the judges differed on the issue of public purpose. “When the TMC government came to power, we had said that you have got the people's mandate and if you want to return there is no problem but it should be done in accordance with constitutional norms,” he said. Banerjee said that the acquisition of land in Singur was a historic suicide by the CPI(M) not just a historic blunder. Tata Motors has clarified that the judgment related to the acquisition of land by the state government, before it was leased to Tata Motors. “Our case relating to Singur Act of 2011, is yet to be heard by the Supreme Court. We will study the judgment in detail before commenting on the same,” the company said.

Officials close to the development explained that two batches of petitions were before the Supreme Court. Wednesday’s judgment was on the special leave petitions filed by farmers and some public interest organisations challenging a Calcutta High Court order of 2008 on the process of land acquisition. In 2008, the high court had dismissed the petitions and upheld the land acquisition, following which leave petitions were filed in the apex court. The second petition was filed by the West Bengal government against the order of a division bench of the High Court, which had struck down the Singur Act of 2011 in 2012. This is yet to be heard. Whether the verdict makes the Singur Act of 2011 null and void is not clear. Officials close to the development said, there was no communication from the apex court to Tata Motors that the Act was null and void.

The Tata group had argued in court that it wanted to retain the land for other projects. But for all practical purposes, it appears that the court has nixed such an ambition. However, during the last hearing in the apex court, Tata group’s counsel had raised the issue of compensation which could be taken up by the company now. The onus of handing over a clear title of the land to the company was after all with the state government. The Supreme Court has laid down clear directions for compensation to land owners. Compensation paid to land owners and cultivators shall not be recovered and the state government shall compensate others who have not been able to enjoy their land for 10 years.