Justice Mr I.P. Mukherji of the Calcutta High Court on Thursday said that it should be verified if the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011, was in consonance with the Land Acquisition Act of 1894.

He said it has to be considered prima facie whether the Act (Singur Act) requires a Presidential assent. Tata Motors had, on June 22, filed a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court challenging the Constitutional validity of the Singur Act.

The counsel for Tata Motors Ltd (TML), Mr Samaraditya Pal, had earlier pointed out that there were inconsistencies between the two Acts — the 1894 Land Acquisition Act and the Singur Act. While the 1894 Act mentions that compensation be determined and paid before acquisition of land, the Singur Act is silent on the issue, Mr Pal pointed out.

Depriving Compensation

He further argued that the only reason for the Singur Act was to deprive the auto major of compensation.

According to Mr Pal, the State Government could have also used provisions in Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which relate to “emergency acquisition” of land. In such a case there was no need to bring in a new Act.

However, the emergency acquisition provisions make it mandatory that 80 per cent of land value is paid before acquisition takes place, Mr Pal maintained.

“If the government felt that it had to fulfil a promise and there was urgency, it could then have taken recourse to the provisions in the Land Acquisition Act. The only reason that it has not done is to discriminate against me (TML) in the matter of compensation,” Mr Pal argued.

Related Topics
comment COMMENT NOW