IT was a major victory for West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee when, on September 28, the Calcutta High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011, which was challenged by Tata Motors. The judgment was delivered by the single Bench of Justice I.P. Mukerji, who inter alia held that the Act was constitutional and valid. According to the court, compensation is to be awarded by applying the principles for award of compensation enshrined in Sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
The verdict says: Furthermore, the application has to be determined by award of compensation by the District Judge, Hooghly, within six months of making such application by the Tatas. Furthermore, if the government admits any compensation in its rejoinder to the application to be filed by the Tatas, the government should pay that compensation immediately, since it has taken possession of the land. The judge allowed the Tatas time until November 2 to appeal against this judgment.
The previous Communist Party of India (Marxist)-led Left Front government had acquired 997.11 acres (one acre is 0.4 hectare) in Singur in Hooghly district for Tata Motors' prestigious Nano project. It had also leased out the land to Tata Motors, which had started construction there. But, of the 13,000 land losers, around 2,200, owning a total of about 400 acres, refused to collect the compensation cheques from the State government. Under Mamata Banerjee's leadership, they began a protracted and violent agitation, causing the Tatas to abandon the project before completion in October 2008. Subsequently, Tata Motors shifted the project to Gujarat.
Following the victory of the Trinamool Congress-led alliance in the Assembly elections in May this year, the new government formulated the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Bill, 2011, to facilitate the return of land to the unwilling farmers which was one of Mamata Banerjee's main pre-poll commitments. As soon as the Bill received the Governor's assent, the State government declared that it had taken possession of the land and pasted a notice on the factory gates directing immediate restoration of vacant possession of land in favour of District Magistrate Hooghly on June 21. The Tatas moved the High Court the very next day. The principal objections of the Tatas were that the State Act was unconstitutional since it infringed upon the provisions of the existing Central Act of 1894 regarding land acquisition, which is in the Concurrent List of the Indian Constitution (Entry 42 of List III). According to Tata Motors, the State Act might have been valid if it had the President's assent, but no such assent had been taken. Secondly, it maintained that it did not voluntarily abandon the project but was forced to shift because of difficult conditions, amidst violence, disruption of activities, damage to property, threats to personnel.
The Tatas also contended that the State Act did not specify the compensation amount or the principle according to which losses suffered by the company could be determined. Tata Motors claimed that it had invested around Rs.1,800 crore in establishing the plant and a further Rs.440 crore for constructing buildings, sheds and other infrastructure. The vendors had invested around Rs.171 crore.
Kalyan Banerjee, Trinamool MP who represented the State government along with Advocate General Anindya Mitra, said: The State Act did not involve any acquisition but was framed under the State government's power enshrined in Item 18 of the State List (List II) of the Indian Constitution. He pointed out that Tata Motors was lessee and not owner of the land in question, which continued to be with the State government and there was no acquisition of ownership of title. Hence the name Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act.
For Mamata, the verdict was particularly significant, as it was her relentless agitation for the return of land to the unwilling farmers that paved the way for her political comeback in 2006 and ultimately her victory in the Assembly elections of 2011, making her the first Chief Minister of the State.
Her stand against forcible land acquisition won her the confidence of the vast rural majority and she began to be perceived as a sort of saviour of farmers. In fact, the drafting of the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Bill was the first major legislative venture of her government. The judgment coincided with the result of the Bhowanipore Assembly bylection, which Mamata Banerje won with a thumping majority. However, it is unlikely that the court verdict marks the end of the Singur saga as the Tatas may continue the legal battle.
Suhrid Sankar Chattopadhyay
