High Court seeks report on pilferage at Singur site

June 23, 2011 07:15 pm | Updated November 17, 2021 01:23 am IST - Kolkata

The residents of surrounding villages throng the gate of the Singur project site to show their protest as Tata Motors moved to court to challenge the Singur Bill on Wednesday. Photo: Arunangsu Roy Chowdhury,

The residents of surrounding villages throng the gate of the Singur project site to show their protest as Tata Motors moved to court to challenge the Singur Bill on Wednesday. Photo: Arunangsu Roy Chowdhury,

The Calcutta High Court on Thursday directed the Hooghly District Magistrate to submit a report on the alleged incidents of pilferage and loot at the site of the Tata Motors car factory (since relocated), after the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011 came into force.

Justice Soumitra Pal asked the District Magistrate to submit the report by 11 a.m. Friday, when hearing on Tata Motor's petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Act 2011 will resume. The report should mention about police deployment and maintenance of law and order, and whether pilferage or looting had taken place.

Earlier in the day, Tata Motors submitted video footage of pilferage and looting which allegedly took place on Wednesday, after district authorities had put up a notification claiming possession of the land late on Tuesday evening.

Concern at assets safety

While Samaraditya Pal, counsel for Tata Motors, expressed concern at the safety of the company's assets at the factory site, Advocate-General Anindya Mitra assured the court that 591 police personnel had been maintaining vigil there.

Counsel said even if the Act were considered valid, the West Bengal government's approach to implementing it was unreasonable. No joint inventory had been taken of the assets, plant and machinery at the factory site. As a result, the question of compensation Tata Motors was entitled to could not be settled. “Who is there to ensure that I am granted the compensation I am entitled to under this law?”

Counsel said the government's action in taking possession of the land “was disproportionate to what was required in the circumstances.”

Section 4 (3) of the Act conferred some discretion on the District Magistrate to take steps and use such force as might be necessary to take possession of the land, he said but questioned the justification for use of force in this situation.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.