SC trashes Singur land acquisition for Tata's Nano plant

The Mamata Banerjee government in West Bengal today scored a major victory in the Supreme Court, which termed as "illegal and void" the acquisition of 1053 acres land by the earlier Left Front government for Tata Motors' Nano project at Singur by ordering restoration of land to farmers who will retain the compensation received.
The verdict, which can have far-reaching consequences, was pronounced by a two-judge apex court bench who wrote separate judgements and differed on a few issues, but concurred on key points to quash the land acquisition by directing the authorities to change land use of acquired plots and give them back to farmers who were deprived of occupation and enjoyment of their lands for a decade.

The verdict came as a huge set back to Tata Motors which recently sought Rs 1400 crores damages from state for the losses it suffered at Singur.
A bench of Justices V Gopala Gowda and Arun Mishra, in their 2-page common order, listed out points on which they agreed and said, "we concur on the question of quashing the impugned acquisition proceedings and reliefs to be granted to the land owners/cultivators. The appeals are allowed, the common judgment...By the High Court of Calcutta is set aside."
Taking a sympathetic view of the fact that poor farmers could not enjoy their land, it said "the compensation which has already been paid to land owners/cultivators shall not be recovered by government as they have been deprived of the occupation and enjoyment of lands for the last ten years.

"The landowners/cultivators who have not withdrawn the compensation are permitted to withdraw the same which is in deposit either with Land Acquisition Collector or the Court."

The bench held that the acquisition of land in the Singur case is "declared as illegal and void".
"Since the nature of acquired lands has been changed in view of the acquisition, we direct the Survey Settlement Department of the Government of West Bengal to conduct a survey and identify mouzas of lands acquired with reference to layout plans, other connected records, village maps and survey settlement records of the lands in question within 10 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, in order to identify the respective portions of land which needs to be returned to the respective landowners/cultivators.

Justice Gowda, in his 104-pages judgement listed out
eight key issues for adjudication and referred to various case laws in reaching to conclusions including that the acquisition of land by the state for Tata Motors was not in accordance with the law and not for "public purpose".
"The acquisition of land for and at the instance of the company was sought to be disguised as acquisition of land for 'public purpose' in order to circumvent compliance with the mandatory provisions of Part VII of the L.A. Act.
"This action of the State Government is grossly perverse and illegal and void ab initio in law and such an exercise of power by the state government for acquisition of lands cannot be allowed under any circumstance.

"If such acquisitions of lands are permitted, it would render entire Part VII of the L.A. Act as nugatory and redundant, as then virtually every acquisition of land in favour of a company could be justified as one for a 'public purpose' on the ground that the setting up of industry would generate employment and promote socio economic development in the state," Justice Gowda said.
On the other hand, Justice Mishra, who also penned around a 100-page separate verdict, differed with the findings of Justice Gowda that the land acquisition for the small car project was not for "public purpose".

"In my opinion it would remain acquisition for a public purpose as provided in section 3(f) of the Act; as also opined in the various decisions to be adverted hereinafter of this Court," Justice Mishra said.
"Public purpose has to be adjudged in the background of the facts of the instant case and the State of West Bengal decided to make effort to establish manufacturing industries with a view to attract more private sector investment and foreign direct investment for industrialisation at par with the model adopted by other progressive States," he said.
Justice Mishra said the land acquisition for setting up such an industry would have ultimately benefitted the people and the very purpose of industrialisation, generating job opportunities, hence it would be open to the State Government to invoke the legal provisions.

Justice Mishra also differed with his colleague Justice
Gowda on the question if the land had been acquired for the Tatas, then whether the state government had complied with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.
It was held by Justice Gowda that the legal provisions were not adhered to by the authorities concerned in the acquisition process.
Justice Gowda said the acquisition for a company can be undertaken under the law dealing with public purpose, but "before land could be acquired, the procedure consistent with the statutory provisions of law must be followed mandatorily."
"There is nothing in law which would support the acquisition of land for a particular Company under the guise of 'public purpose', rendering the exception provided under Section 3(f)(viii) of the LA Act useless and nugatory," Justice Gowda said.

"The acquisition of land in the instant case in favour of the Company is thus improper for not following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Part VII of the L.A. Act and Rules and therefore the acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed," he said.
Both the judges concurred in their findings on three issues related to inquiry to be conducted by the authorities under the law for acquisition.
They also concurred in their opinion on questions whether the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) assigned reasons in his report for rejecting objections of the farmers after application of mind.
The third question on which both judges agreed was whether the report of the LAC was based on the decision of the state government taken prior to issuing notification.

Justice Gowda said that it seemed there was no
application of mind either at the stage of issuance of the notification under the law or in the report of LAC or while issuing the final notification.
"Such an acquisition, if allowed to sustain, would lead to the attempt to justify any and every acquisition of land of the most vulnerable sections of the society in the name of public purpose to promote socio-economic development.
"Some of these objectors (farmers) were not given the opportunity to be heard as required under Section 5-A (2) of the L.A. Act. The same ought to have been given to them as required both under the statutory provisions of the L.A. Act as well as the principles of natural justice, as the acquisition of lands of the objectors would entail a serious civil consequence," he said.

Perusing the relevant records, he said it was clear that the objections of farmers have been rejected without assigning any clear reason or application of mind.
"Thus, the report of the Collector is not a valid report in the eyes of law. The state has mechanically accepted the same without application of mind independently before issuing notification under Section 6 of the L.A. Act declaring that the lands are required for establishment of automobile industry," Justice Gowda said.
Dealing with questions in regard to compensation to farmers, he said a statutory duty is cast upon the Collector to issue notice to the land owners/cultivators, as required under the law to determine the market value of the acquired land and award compensation, which is mandatory for taking possession of the land by the state government.
Justice Gowda said that as can be seen from material on record, no individual notices were served upon the land owners.
"A joint inquiry appears to have been conducted by the Land Acquisition Collector without giving them an adequate opportunity to establish their claim for determination of reasonable compensation for acquisition of lands by presenting true and correct market value of the lands," he said.