Single judge’s order set aside, setback to Mamata government
In a setback to the Mamata Banerjee government, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on Friday struck down the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011, terming it “unconstitutional and void.”
The law was enacted by the Trinamool Congress-led government to return a portion of the land acquired for the Tata Motors’ small car factory at Singur to “unwilling farmers” — in fulfilment of a key poll promise.
The Bench of Justices Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri set aside the order of single judge I. P. Mukerji who had ruled that the Act was “constitutional and valid.”
Kalyan Banerjee, Trinamool Congress MP and one of the lawyers for the government, said the State would appeal against the order in the Supreme Court.
The Bench said the Act “is a law relating to acquisition,” a subject mentioned on the Concurrent List of the Constitution. It held that some sections of the Act were in conflict with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
On the question whether the Act fulfilled a public purpose as required in the case of an acquisition by the state, the Bench said: “…the Act cannot be treated as [one] for public purpose when the intention is to return the land to the unwilling landowners/farmers.”
“…The Singur Land Rehabilitation & Development Act, 2011 is held to be unconstitutional and void, since it is without having assent from the President of India,” it said.
In its 253-page judgment, the Bench said the Act only provided for “refund of the money that was paid by the vendors,” which amounted to “no compensation.”
While Mr. Justice Mukerji, in his September 28 order, termed the provisions for compensation in the Act “vague and uncertain” and ruled that the relevant sections of the Land Acquisition Act be incorporated into it, the Division Bench said: “The said part of the order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.”
“…the court has no jurisdiction to insert, in the guise of interpretation of statute, or rewrite or recast or reframe the same as held by the Supreme Court,” the Bench said.
Justice Mukerji “has no power to insert or recast or rewrite the statute by inserting Sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.”
However, the court granted a two-month stay on the order. The government “should not part with the possession of the land” during this period and might go in appeal.
Tatas to study Singur order
The House of Tatas on Friday refrained from giving out any reaction on the Singur verdict saying that they will have to study the order first.
When contacted in Mumbai, a Tata Sons spokesman said : “ We will first have to study the order in detail before we can given out any reaction.”
The Tatas had moved Court last year after the state government initiated measures to vest the Singur land, after enacting the Law and had also begun distributing forms for returning land to unwilling farmers ( although there did not seem to be too many takers) .
Returning land to these farmers was among the first executive decisions taken by the Mamata Banerjee government on its first day in office “ We plan to give back 400 acres, the Tatas are can set up their plant on the rest 600”, Ms Banerjee had announced, scoffing at queries whether the government will invite them to do so. “ They will invite themselves” she had quipped.
However, since the new Trinamool Congress government ascended power, not only the Tatas but very few industry houses have submitted concrete investment proposals, mainly due to the government’s hands-off policy on land acquisition.
“ The damage has been long done” said an official of a leading Chamber of Commerce after hearing today’s verdict, adding that beyond proving that the state government’s stand on Singur was unreasonable, the verdict does not help one way or the other. “ Industry does not have confidence in a government that cannot put forward logical and consistent policies.” he said.
Official of another chamber of commerce felt that now was the time to ``wait and watch.”
Another Chamber of Commerce said that while it was difficult to take sides as both the farmers and the Tatas had suffered losses in the process, it was important to await the apex court verdict.
“We feel that the issue should go to the Supreme Court for imparting a sense of fairness to land - owners and also to get a far sighted and fair view for the long term interest of economic and social development of the country,” the Chamber said.
Keywords: Singur Land verdict, tata motors
Those writing that the court has a given a politically biased verdict what proof do they have? The state govt is free to appeal to the supreme court against this verdict. The main reason for state court verdict is that when a state law contradicts with the central law the state has to seek presidential consent to enact the law and in this case West Bengal govt sent it to the state governor instead of the president. One needs to study the verdict before passing wild accusations against the highest state court.
@prakashkapila:
Your argument does not hold water. Mamata's relations with the congress have been sour
since a long time. If didi were to be arm twisted, such a decision could have been forced
upon by the congress to manipulate decisions, from the very first of the important bills which
didi did her blocking abhishek with. Many bills conducive to our economy have been
blocked, by the blessings of this bjp's Trojan horse in the govt. and hence, this brings us to a
contradiction: either the congress uses such tactics only on Malayan and maya and not
mamata( weak) or all this brouhaha about courts being used and the Ada yada are just
conspiracy theories.
Anyways, I would hypothesise that mamata is actually behind it. The high courts are under
the state govt, and mamata , to paint a victim picture of herself, has ordered this anti- herself
decision so that the opposition spin doctors can weave and concoct tales about how didi is
being threatened because of her "patriotism"
If it is a "rehabilitation" act then why reference it with the archaic
"acquisition" act? The legislature is within its right to change archaic
laws by framing new ones. Also, if the state can give land to an
industry, it can also give the land to its original owners, specially
when all know what had happened. Probably, the learned judges have
looked at it differently.
When this Bill was brought for discussion in the Assembly the Opposition had raised these points, briefly mentioned in the Court Order, as also some other points for consideration by Mamata govt., which she ignored contempuously.It was the same mentality that she showed during the agitation in the name of returning the land(to the 'unwilling landowners') that was acquired for the small car factory being built by Tatas.She created such an atmosphere that Tatas abandoned the project here and built it in Gujarat.Mamata was told repeatedly that the Land can not be returned as per existing Laws and Supreme Court judgements.
As a result of Mamata's obstinacy,the small peasants suffered.They were provoked and misled not to take the compensation provided by the State govt.Mamata could not return the land.They can not do anything but curse Mamata,saying she abandoned them after winning the election.
@ Prakashkapila
though there is much to be concerned about, on the integrity of the judicial institution especially, the lower level. the courts job is to apply the law , not look at greviences in such constitutional matters. Th article clearly states that the High Court took exception on two accounts. Common law judicial systems in general and ours in particular give quiet extensive reasons for the courts judgements. to wildely air accusations where there is no evidence or even the most remote of connections does not do favours to your credibility nor that of your opinion.
Well done judiciary. Hats off...
Here is an old news on Singur. Land protesters beat Singur engineer
senseless at Singur on July 29, 2008. An engineer at the Tata Motors
plant was thrashed that evening by activists of the Trinamul-backed
Save Farmland Committee who were protesting the arrest of a fellow
member at the site on theft charges. An unconscious Manish Khatua,
whose firm Shapoorji Pallonji and Company was building the Nano plant,
was brought to a private hospital in Calcutta with head injuries,
police said. Khatua, in his 30s, regained consciousness on the way to
the hospital. Shapoorji sources said. The trouble began when Sailen
Hambir, 40, a resident of Bajemelia bordering the site, was accused of entering the plant to steal and held. Trinamul leaders said Sailen was a supporter of the committee, which wants land taken from unwilling farmers for the project to be returned. Priyabrata Bakshi, officer-in-charge of Singur police station, said those who assaulted Khatua had come to steal rods. “Those who attacked the engineer are supporters of the committee. They had come to steal rods from the site and while escaping beat up the engineer.” However, Manik Das, the Trinamul zilla Parishad member from Singur, said Sailen had entered the plant around 6 pm to “roam around”. “He was a land loser and sometimes entered the site through slits in the boundary wall to roam around. Today
suddenly, the policemen on duty accused him of stealing and arrested him.” According to the police, nearly 200 villagers from Bajemelia, including women, rushed to the plant site with rods and sticks as soon as word about the arrest spread and demanded that Sailen be released.
The police had to chase away the protesters with canes. “On their way back, they (villagers) came across the engineer and beat him up,” another police official said. Rajeev Mishra, the police chief of Hooghly, of which Singur is a part, confirmed one arrest. The attack
occurred on a day security for the project was reviewed after crude bombs exploded last night at Singur station and at a lodge occupied by Tata plant workers. “We reviewed the security for the Tata Motors factory,” Bengal home secretary Asok Mohan Chakrabarti said after a
meeting in Calcutta chaired by chief secretary Amit Kiran Deb and
attended by police chief A.B. Vohra. Patrolling has been stepped up on
the 5 km stretch between the plant and Singur station. More policemen
have been deployed at Kamarkundu and Madhusudanpur stations, used by
the workers. Some workers at the vendor park inside the site didn’t
turn up yesterday after alleged threats from the Save Farmland
Committee.
When mamata was pro congress the Culcutta High court bench made the act
constitutional, now its made the act unconstitutional,Is there a
correlation of relationships between congress based on loop holes of
being approved by president instead of looking at the greviences of all
parties affected.So is this correlated or coincidence.Coincidence is
fine correleated shows a bad light on our institutional strengths &
integrity.
Vienna,June 22,2012
The Press Trust of India owes readers information on
what made the new West Bengal government led by Ms.
Mamata Bannerjee not to seek assent of the President
to the legislation before grabbing at the disputed
land.
Taranvadu Taranga Trust for Media Monitoring TTTMM
--Kulamarva Balakrishna
Ms. Mamata Banerjee made the Act for the poor farmers whoose agricultural Land was forcibly acquired by the the then left front gov. for the interest of Tata. The government acqiired the land for the interest of Tata but with the public interest. How land taken for the interest of industrialist could be the public interst. Ms. Banerjee's stand was right. Ms. Tata should forego the land for the great interest of poor villagers without taking any ego complex.
With no firm Legislation on land acquisition, various States have
meddled with public/government land for quite long. There are
few instances where corporates have not used land so allotted in
public interest including providing employment opportunities to the
original land owners; it has also been found that the fresh allottees
have changed the land usage without proper approvals. The
governments are to be blamed for they have not put in place
appropriate mechanism to ensure proper use of land allotted at
throw away prices. However, in the instant case, the TMC should
have desisted from their belligerent methods to stop the coming up
of Tata's small car project & its eventual closure after the company
had invested huge funds & created basic infrastructure. Among
private enterprises Tatas have enviable record as best employers &
they would have provided huge employment opportunities which
Mamata failed & deliberately ignored to note. The HC's decision on
the issue is in on spot.
The judgement against Mamata's repealing the lease is justified.
At this rate all the political parties would resort to annul the legeslations of political opponent governments of the past and governance would be savage and rude and the international community would lose faith in INDIA and its States.
Mamata would have negotiated with TATA's.Out of 1000 aquired oweners of 600 acers accepted the acquisition .this itself shows the succur to the 400 acer owners is mere political. Any huge industry to come and start an industry they need large incentives.Even in china they provide land,power and infrastructure apart from incentives. Even now Mamata can negotiate with TATAS and provide bigger opportunity of employment. Now no farmer wants to put their wards in agriculture. Days of corporate farming is round the corner and it would introduce mechanisation and provide employment to all thos who lost their land.GOD bless W Bengal and INDIA> we should not oppose for opposing sake.
Please Email the Editor