The West Bengal government told the Calcutta High Court on Thursday that the word “compensation” was deliberately used in the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act 2011 and the Supreme Court had given the guiding principles for evaluating compensation.
“Instead of ‘amount', the Act deliberately used the word compensation,” Advocate- General Anindya Mitra said, adding the compensation was to be adjudged by a district judge.
Tata claim
In its petition, Tata Motors claimed that the Act was unconstitutional because it did not specify the amount or the principles according to which compensation would be calculated.
Mr. Mitra argued before Justice I. P. Mukerji that after the 44th amendment to the Constitution — when the state acquires property — “compensation is no longer required to be fixed or the principles for compensation specified.” It was essential only to ensure that the compensation amount “is not wholly arbitrary or illusory.”
Citing previous judgements, Mr. Mitra said the definition of compensation had been adequately given and “the Supreme court has given the guiding principles for evaluating compensation.”
Repugnancy issue
Mr. Mitra addressed the issue of repugnancy raised by Tata Motors, claiming that the Singur Act and the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 operated in different areas. He said the State Act had been legislated under the State list and not under the Concurrent list.
“The West Bengal Assembly has exclusive power in any right in or over land and over land tenures as well,” Mr. Mitra said.
Mr. Mitra said it could not be argued that if the State acquired land, it must do so only under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The State could acquire land by enacting a law through the legislature or Parliament.
