In a relief to the West Bengal government, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled that land acquired for Tata Motors' 'Nano' car project in Singur will not be restored to the industrial entities which were operating there prior to the acquisition.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi interpreted the apex court's 2016 verdict in Kedar Nath Yadav's case that quashed the land acquisition proceedings for establishing the manufacturing plant of Tata Motors.
The bench said the 2016 judgement was anchored on the premise that the acquisition disproportionately affected vulnerable communities lacking financial resources and institutional access to challenge governmental action.
The bench noted that this court had directed restoration of land to the original landowners/cultivators by the state within a period of 12 weeks.
"Extraordinary judicial intervention is warranted when systemic barriers prevent certain classes from accessing ordinary remedies, not when parties possess adequate means to vindicate their rights. Relief conceived to prevent impoverishment among the disadvantaged cannot extend to commercial enterprises with financial capacity and institutional sophistication," the bench said, while interpreting the 2016 verdict.
The top court passed the order on a plea of state government challenging the Calcutta High Court order that had directed the state to restore 28 bighas of land, including all structures, to M/s Santi Ceramics Private Limited, which was operating a manufacturing facility in Singur for the production of ceramic electrical insulators prior to the 2006 land acquisition process for Tata's Nano project.
The bench, which set aside the high court order, said the remedy provided by this court addressed the structural vulnerability as the apex court in 2016 identified poor agricultural workers as the weakest sections of society.
"Subsistence farmers dependent entirely on inherited land face destitution when acquisition bypasses mandatory safeguards- they possess no alternative livelihood, lack resources to navigate administrative procedures or afford prolonged litigation. The remedy provided by this court addressed this structural vulnerability," it said.
Justice Surya Kant, who penned the verdict on behalf of the bench, said the classification carries decisive legal significance and by grounding relief in structural incapacity rather than extending automatic restoration to all affected parties, this court in 2016 prevented undermining finality in land acquisition proceedings while ensuring protection for the genuinely defenceless.
"Against this backdrop, we have no hesitation in holding that respondent No. 1 (Santi Ceramics) falls squarely outside the protective framework envisaged by this court. Unlike marginal farmers facing potential destitution from loss of their sole livelihood, respondent No. 1 operated a 60,000 square feet manufacturing facility employing over 100 workers since 2003, having purchased and converted agricultural land for commercial purposes," it noted.
It said the express objective of the PIL filed before the high court in 2006 was to safeguard cultivators whose livelihoods faced extinction through large-scale acquisition and extending such relief to industrial entities like Santi Ceramics would thus defeat the remedy's foundational intent.
"In view of the above analysis, we hold that the reasoning in Kedar Nath Yadav case (2016 verdict) does not enure to the benefit of respondent No. 1. The restoration remedy was conceived for disadvantaged farming communities, not as general restitution for all affected parties," it said.
The bench further said that Santi Ceramics, despite possessing financial resources and institutional access, never pursued the appellate remedies available under the law and accepted the entire compensation amount of around Rs 14 lakh without protest and remained passive while farmers pursued litigation for over a decade.
"Having chosen not to contest the acquisition through available statutory mechanisms, respondent No. 1 now seeks the same relief that was granted to disadvantaged communities through PIL- a classic free-rider problem that judicial remedies cannot encourage," it said.
It added that permitting industrial entities to claim restoration benefits from litigation they chose not to pursue would establish an undesirable precedent.
"Such an approach would incentivise strategic inaction, encouraging parties to remain dormant during protracted litigation only to emerge as claimants after favourable outcomes are secured by others. This would undermine both the targeted nature of remedial relief and the fundamental principle that legal benefits flow from active pursuit of remedies, not passive opportunism," it said.
The top court also noted that nearly two decades have elapsed since the acquisition process and following Tata Motors' withdrawal from the project in 2010, the acquired land vested back with the state free from all encumbrances.
It noted that pursuant to the 2016 verdict, extensive survey operations were undertaken to restore land to farmers.
The top court permitted Santi Ceramics to remove remaining structures, machinery from the subject land within three months or alternatively it may request the state authorities to put the structures, machinery and other movable and immovable articles for public auction.
It said Santi Ceramics shall be entitled to the auction proceeds after deducting expenses incurred on the auction process.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi interpreted the apex court's 2016 verdict in Kedar Nath Yadav's case that quashed the land acquisition proceedings for establishing the manufacturing plant of Tata Motors.
The bench said the 2016 judgement was anchored on the premise that the acquisition disproportionately affected vulnerable communities lacking financial resources and institutional access to challenge governmental action.
The bench noted that this court had directed restoration of land to the original landowners/cultivators by the state within a period of 12 weeks.
"Extraordinary judicial intervention is warranted when systemic barriers prevent certain classes from accessing ordinary remedies, not when parties possess adequate means to vindicate their rights. Relief conceived to prevent impoverishment among the disadvantaged cannot extend to commercial enterprises with financial capacity and institutional sophistication," the bench said, while interpreting the 2016 verdict.
The top court passed the order on a plea of state government challenging the Calcutta High Court order that had directed the state to restore 28 bighas of land, including all structures, to M/s Santi Ceramics Private Limited, which was operating a manufacturing facility in Singur for the production of ceramic electrical insulators prior to the 2006 land acquisition process for Tata's Nano project.
The bench, which set aside the high court order, said the remedy provided by this court addressed the structural vulnerability as the apex court in 2016 identified poor agricultural workers as the weakest sections of society.
"Subsistence farmers dependent entirely on inherited land face destitution when acquisition bypasses mandatory safeguards- they possess no alternative livelihood, lack resources to navigate administrative procedures or afford prolonged litigation. The remedy provided by this court addressed this structural vulnerability," it said.
Justice Surya Kant, who penned the verdict on behalf of the bench, said the classification carries decisive legal significance and by grounding relief in structural incapacity rather than extending automatic restoration to all affected parties, this court in 2016 prevented undermining finality in land acquisition proceedings while ensuring protection for the genuinely defenceless.
"Against this backdrop, we have no hesitation in holding that respondent No. 1 (Santi Ceramics) falls squarely outside the protective framework envisaged by this court. Unlike marginal farmers facing potential destitution from loss of their sole livelihood, respondent No. 1 operated a 60,000 square feet manufacturing facility employing over 100 workers since 2003, having purchased and converted agricultural land for commercial purposes," it noted.
It said the express objective of the PIL filed before the high court in 2006 was to safeguard cultivators whose livelihoods faced extinction through large-scale acquisition and extending such relief to industrial entities like Santi Ceramics would thus defeat the remedy's foundational intent.
"In view of the above analysis, we hold that the reasoning in Kedar Nath Yadav case (2016 verdict) does not enure to the benefit of respondent No. 1. The restoration remedy was conceived for disadvantaged farming communities, not as general restitution for all affected parties," it said.
The bench further said that Santi Ceramics, despite possessing financial resources and institutional access, never pursued the appellate remedies available under the law and accepted the entire compensation amount of around Rs 14 lakh without protest and remained passive while farmers pursued litigation for over a decade.
"Having chosen not to contest the acquisition through available statutory mechanisms, respondent No. 1 now seeks the same relief that was granted to disadvantaged communities through PIL- a classic free-rider problem that judicial remedies cannot encourage," it said.
It added that permitting industrial entities to claim restoration benefits from litigation they chose not to pursue would establish an undesirable precedent.
"Such an approach would incentivise strategic inaction, encouraging parties to remain dormant during protracted litigation only to emerge as claimants after favourable outcomes are secured by others. This would undermine both the targeted nature of remedial relief and the fundamental principle that legal benefits flow from active pursuit of remedies, not passive opportunism," it said.
The top court also noted that nearly two decades have elapsed since the acquisition process and following Tata Motors' withdrawal from the project in 2010, the acquired land vested back with the state free from all encumbrances.
It noted that pursuant to the 2016 verdict, extensive survey operations were undertaken to restore land to farmers.
The top court permitted Santi Ceramics to remove remaining structures, machinery from the subject land within three months or alternatively it may request the state authorities to put the structures, machinery and other movable and immovable articles for public auction.
It said Santi Ceramics shall be entitled to the auction proceeds after deducting expenses incurred on the auction process.
You may also like
Personal Finance Tips: Follow These 4 Simple Rules and You Could Become a Crorepati
Black coffee can supercharge your brain, body, and mood: Delhi surgeon reveals the perfect dose for peak mental and physical performance
UPI Gets Major Upgrade: Manage All Your Autopayments from One App, New Rules Effective from December 31
Urban flood crisis in Pakistan result of governance failure: Report
Priyanka Gandhi accuses Union govt of ignoring disaster-hit Himachal Pradesh
