Guest column: Acquisition of land for public purposes and right to livelihood

What stand have Indian courts taken on the issue of land acquisition by the state for public purposes vis-a-vis the right to livelihood?

Under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the state has the power to acquire privately held land for public purposes. This acquisition of land by the state for public purpose has been challenged before the courts as being violative of the fundamental right of right to livelihood.

The Supreme Court on various instances has dealt with the question of whether the acquisition of land by state offends the right to livelihood of a person. The court has observed time and again that if such a contention is given credence, no land can be acquired for any public purpose since in all such cases the owner would be deprived of his property.

Further, since the law provides solatium for compulsory acquisition of land, the same cannot be contested as violating the right to livelihood or right to shelter or dignity of person. Prompt and timely payment of compensation to the land losers for facilitating their rehabilitation/resettlement is an integral part of public policy.

Recently Tata Motors pulled out of Singur, West Bengal amidst protests from farmers whose lands had been acquired by the government, for setting up the plant to manufacture the Nano car. The West Bengal government had acquired approximately 997 acres of multi-crop land required for the car factory. In Singur, 1,500 of the 12,000 farmers whose lands had been acquired protested against the acquisition on the grounds that the acquisition affected their livelihood.

Many writ petitions were filed in the High Court of Calcutta challenging the said acquisition on the ground that agricultural land was acquired without following the provisions of the law and without obtaining the consent of the farmers. The dissenting farmers demanded that their lands be returned to them.

The High Court of Calcutta while dismissing the writ petitions upheld the legality of the acquisition proceedings. The court observed that land acquisition was made for the public purpose of employment generation and socio-economic development of the egion and ruled out any malafide intention of the state government in acquiring land in Singur. 

Hence, though the right to livelihood is a fundamental right but land can be acquired by the state if it may be to serve a larger public purpose.

Mrinal Kumar is a principal associate and Shruti Garg is an associate at Amarchand Mangaldas