Even as Tata Motors is ready to vacate the Singur land if compensated, both parties may work out a formula over the weekend.
Tata Motors and the West Bengal government are likely to come up with a “workable solution” over the weekend before the hearing on the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011, resumes at the Calcutta High Court on Monday.
Though it was not clear what it might be, Tata Motors counsel Samaraditya Pal requested the Advocate General on Friday to agree to a status quo on distribution of land, in the light of media reports.
Pal was referring to statements made by West Bengal commerce and industry minister Partha Chatterjee on Thursday that the process of returning land to unwilling farmers was underway. Chief minister Mamata Banerjee had also indicated, after Tata Motors moved court, that the land was with the state government.
Advocate General Anindya Mitra, however, refused to respond immediately and reserved his comments for Monday.
Siddhartha Mitra, also a Tata Motors counsel, said if anything worked out, which would be agreeable to both parties, steps could be taken in that direction. He said there were proposals from both sides.
Tata Motors had written to the Left government it would vacate the land if compensated. The company invested Rs 1,800 crore in developing and leveling the land, apart from the plant and machinery. Though, a lot of the infrastructure was shifted when the project was relocated to Sanand in Gujarat, building and sheds worth Rs 440 crore remained at Singur. The company said it was spending Rs 1 crore a month to maintain it.
One of the main points of argument of the Tatas' was to maintain status quo, since the company was entitled to compensation under to the Singur Act, which revoked the lease agreement between the West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation (WBIDC), on grounds of “non-commissioning and abandoning” of the project. In October 2008, the company pulled out the Nano project after a violent protest against land acquisition spearheaded by Mamata Banerjee’s Trinamool Congress.
The Advocate General said the agitation was led by a third party and not WBIDC or the state government. “Why couldn’t the company restart the project after 30-40 days,” he asked. Mitra said the vendors and Tata Motors should be treated separately. Tata Motors was a lessee, while vendors were allottees.
Earlier in the court, Pal argued that the Singur Act was repugnant to the extent it was in conflict with some basic principles of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which was used to acquire the entire land (997 acres) at Singur for the company and its 54 vendors. There was no provision of returning the land under the Act to the erstwhile land losers.
“Once possession has been taken for public purpose, if that fails the land cannot be returned to owners. The state has to go for some other public purpose or auction,” Pal said. Whereas, the purpose of the Singur Act was to vest the land with the state government for the purpose of returning the land to the “unwilling” owners who have not accepted any compensation.
This hearing would continue on Monday.
