In a major setback for West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and the government led by her, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court ruled on June 22 that the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011, was unconstitutional and void. The Act provided for the return of the land acquired (under the Central Land Acquisition Act of 1894) from the unwilling land losers of Singur in Hooghly district for the establishment of Tata Motors small car factory. A Single-Bench judgment of the High Court had upheld the constitutional validity of the Act in September last year.
On June 20, 2011, Governor M.K. Narayanan gave his assent to the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Bill, 2011, making it an Act. The following day the State government declared that it had taken possession of the land through an official notice put up on the disputed site. Tata Motors and a host of vendors moved the High Court, challenging, among others, the constitutional validity of the Act. Three months later, on September 28, a Single Bench upheld its constitutional validity. Tata Motors filed an appeal against it.
The Division Bench, comprising Justices Pinaki Chandra Ghosh and Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri, held that the Singur Act was a law relating to acquisition and without having assent from the President of India the Singur Act is hit by Article 254(1) of the Constitution of India. The operative part of the order said the Article says that if any provision of a State law on a subject in the Concurrent List is repugnant to any provision of an earlier or an existing law made by Parliament with respect to that matter, then the State law can prevail in that State only if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and received his assent.
The Division Bench pointed out that Sections 3, 4(3), 5 and 6 of the Singur Act were direct in conflict with the LA [Land Acquisition] Act and repugnant to the said Act. The Bench also decided that the Singur Act could not be treated as one for a public purpose when the intention was to return the land to the unwilling landowners/farmers. Furthermore, the provisions regarding compensation, as modified by the Single Bench, were held to be not sustainable in the eye of law and were set aside. The Division Bench has allowed a period of two months for the State government to file an appeal in the Supreme Court.
Though Mamata Banerjee maintained a stony silence after the verdict was given, her party put up a brave front. We won in the Single Bench and lost in the Division Bench. The State will now move the Supreme Court, said Kalyan Bandopadhyay, Trinamool MP and a lawyer of the State government in the case.
The judgment, however, vindicated the stand of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) on the issue. Surya Kanta Mishra, the Leader of the Opposition in the State Assembly and CPI(M) Polit Bureau member, said, We were not against giving the land back to the farmers, but we wanted it done in a constitutional manner. The State government ignored all our suggestions and hurriedly passed the Bill.
The latest judgment is perceived as a major political blow to Mamata Banerjee. It was the agitation she led in Singur that paved the way for her political comeback. One of her most important election promises was to return the land to the unwilling farmers of Singur. However, this continues to remain an unfulfilled promise.
Suhrid Sankar ChattopadhyayCOMMents
COMMents
SHARE