The contentious issue of whether the land in Singur was acquired for "public purpose" or for Tata Motors Ltd today saw two judges of a Supreme Court bench giving divergent views, with one saying the acquisition served public purpose and the other replying in the negative.
While Justice V Gopala Gowda observed that acquisition of land "for and at the instance of the company" was sought to be "disguised" as acquisition of land for public purpose, Justice Arun Mishra said when the government wants to attract investment and create job opportunities, such acquisition was permissible for public purpose.
Referring to the Land Acquisition Act, Justice Gowda said that acquisition of land was sought to be disguised for public purpose to "circumvent" the compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Act and such action by the state government was "grossly perverse and illegal".
"In view of the aforesaid categorical findings recorded by me based on the materials on record, including cabinet memo, minutes of meetings between representatives of the state government and TML (Tata Motors Ltd) as well as the notifications issued under sections 4 and 6 of the LA Act, 1984, it is clear that the acquisition of lands in the instant case is for the Company (TML)," Justice Gowda said.
Disagreeing with his findings, Justice Mishra said as the state had treated the acquisition to be for a public purpose and the entire money was paid by the West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation (WBIDC), "consequently by mere mention that the land was required for the small car project of TML would not make it an acquisition for a company under part VII (of the Act).
(Rpting with corrected slug)
Justice Gowda said, "In view of the foregoing reasons, by no stretch of imagination can such an acquisition of lands be held to be one for 'public purpose' and not for a company. If the acquisition of lands in the instant case does not amount to one for the company, I do not know what would."
However, Justice Mishra said, "The fact that application was filed by TML indicating its willingness for setting up the industry would not also make it an acquisition for a company but how the state has dealt with the same, would be the decisive factor."
"Acquisition of land for a company or for industrialisation, if it is for public purpose, would be covered under section 3(f) as amended and when corporation is the acquiring authority and amount of compensation is borne by it in entirety and land has been ultimately leased out to TML for its project by it the acquisition would remain for a public purpose under section 3(f) attracting Part II of the Act," he said.
"The procedure adopted under Part II cannot be said to be impermissible. It cannot be said to be acquisition under guise of public purpose so as to violate the intendment of exclusion of the company from section 3(f) as amended," Justice Mishra said while noting that WBIDC had paid the entire compensation.
Referring to the Act, Justice Mishra also said that there can be an acquisition for public purpose and "ultimately land may go on lease or other mode of transfer to a company and in case the compensation is paid out of public revenue, it would be an acquisition for a public purpose under Part II and in case compensation is borne as per the agreement provided in section 41, it would be an acquisition under Part VII of the Act.
