Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Democratic Indian (n/a)     29 September 2011

Tata motors limited and another versus state of west bengal

 

CONCLUSIONS

In view of the discussion above: (a) The Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011 is held to be constitutional and valid. The Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Rules, 2011 are also held to be constitutional and valid. So is, any action taken by the state, thereunder.

(b) The above Act was not wholly an exercise of the power of the state legislature under entry 18 of list II of the seventh schedule to the 50

Constitution of India, but, was also an exercise of its power under entry 42 of list III. Hence, there was acquisition of land leased out to the Tatas.

(c) Sufficient public purpose for making such acquisition is made out in the above Act.

(d) There is a provision in Section 5(2) of the above Act for award of compensation by the District Judge, Hooghly on an application made by the Tatas. Although, there is an intention expressed by the legislature, to pay compensation, the intention expressed is vague and uncertain.

Therefore, this Court has made an interpretation of this provision in the foregoing part of this judgment. According to the interpretation made by this 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, as applicable, which are deemed to be incorporated into Section 5(2) of the impugned Act, by reading land as provided in those sections with the definition section of that Act and by taking the date of notification provided in the said sections as the date of notification of the impugned Act. 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.

(e) The District officials have exceeded their powers in taking possession of the land without any notice to the Tatas and acting so hastily as discussed in the foregoing part of this judgment. Therefore, the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, Hooghly are appointed and constituted as Joint Special Officers by this Court, in addition to their official duties, to ensure safe and smooth transition of this land from the Tatas to the State, by carefully and scrupulously taking all necessary steps so that the Tatas are allowed to remove their items if any that remain on the land, after making an inventory thereof to be signed by them as well as by a representative of the Tatas within a period of two months from this date, including the period of stay of this order.

(f) Both the writ applications are disposed of.

(g) I make it clear that this decision is confined to issues decided between the parties.

(h) As the issues involved are most contentious between the parties, I am of the opinion that any aggrieved party should be given a chance to test this judgment and order in appeal. Moreover, very shortly, the Puja vacation of this Court will start and this Court will reopen only on 31st October, 2011.

Of course, there will be a Vacation Bench. But, I do note that most of the lawyers utilise this holiday for being on vacation. Therefore, for the ends of justice I order unconditional stay of this judgment and order till 2nd November, 2011.

51

All parties and the District Magistrate, Hooghly and the Superintendent of Police, Hooghly are to act on an authenticated photo plain copy of the judgment and order, subject to the undertaking to apply for and obtain a certified copy or a certified photo copy of this judgment and order.

(I.P. MUKERJI, J.)

.

Later I clarify the stay granted by me today by saying that this judgment and order is not to be construed as a “further order” in terms of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated 29th June, 2011 in SLP (C) No. 16521 of 2011 (

Tata Motors Limited and another – vs – State of West Bengal and others.

(I.P. MUKERJI, J.)

 

The copy of the entire judgement is attached with this post as an attachment.



Learning

 0 Replies


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register