New Delhi, Aug 24 (IBNS): The Supreme Court on Friday stayed a judgement of the Calcutta High Court on the Singur land row and issued a notice to the West Bengal government on the same.
The West Bengal government had moved the Supreme Court against a judgement by the Calcutta High Court on June 22 that ruled that the legislation passed by West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee to repossess the land allotted to Tata Motors "is constitutionally invalid", serving a huge blow to the Trinamool Congress (TMC) chief.
The Supreme Court order staying the verdict of the high court is a temporary reprieve for the West Bengal government.
The verdict, by a division bench of Calcutta high court, comprising justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose and justice Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri, declared the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011 as unconstitutional and void.
The TMC, which came to power last year largely on the promise of returning the land allotted for a car factory to unwilling farmers, then moved the Supreme Court.
At the completion of her first year in power in May, Banerjee had admitted that the ongoing Singur case was her government’s “only failure” as she had failed to return the land of unwilling farmers owing to court cases with the Tatas.
A total of 997 acres of land in Singur was given to the Tatas for their dirt-cheap Nano car factory by the previous Left Front government in 2006, triggering huge protest led by Mamata Banerjee and supported by various civil society groups.
Of the 13,000 owners of land, 2000 had rejected the compensation for about 400 acres of land, leading to the protests.
The court said the Tatas can claim compensation according to the provisions of the land acquisition law of 1894 because it was under that law the land was given to the Tatas.
After winning the May 2011 elections, much of which was owing to the Singur movement of Mamata Banerjee, the new chief minister took possession of the Singur land on June 21 after passing the Singur act.
Tatas moved the high court immediately. It contended that the act was unconstitutional and the vesting of the 600 acres of land (besides the 300 acres for vendors of the plant) leased to it was invalid.