The Tata Motors' counsel, Mr Samaraditya Pal, on Friday argued before the Calcutta High Court that the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011, does not define the ‘public purpose' for which land was being taken back by the State.
The Singur Act also sought to return land to “unwilling farmers”, who are not recognised as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, he maintained.
“It does not state for what purpose land is being taken back. Nowhere is it mentioned in the Act. Who will decide what the public purpose is,” Mr Pal argued.
Tata Motors had filed a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court on June 22 challenging the Constitutional validity of the Singur Act. The auto major's counsel further maintained that the new State Act speaks of a category — unwilling farmers — who are not recognised under the 1894 Land Acquisition Act. According to the auto major's counsel, it needs to be decided whether returning land to such ‘unwilling farmers' — who are “not identified in the eyes of the law”— is possible.
“The 1894 Act states that land once taken, cannot be returned and here it is being done for some who do not exist in the eyes of the law,” Mr Pal maintained. He further questioned whether maintaining law and order at Singur was such a big issue that the State had to bring in a new Act.
“Is the situation so volatile that you do not have the power to stop the situation? Does it need an Act to restore possession?” Mr Pal questioned.
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 TheHindu Businessline 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.