The order by the Supreme Court on Wednesday, upending the acquisition of about 1,000 acres of land at Singur near Kolkata in 2006 by the then Left Front government of West Bengal for Tata Motors to set up its factory to make Nano passenger cars, will have resounding implications on the ongoing national debate on finding land for industrialisation.
Honourable Justices V Gopala Gowda and Arun Mishra were evidently so peeved by the irregularities, and the illegality, of the acquisition that they were unanimous in ordering the parcels of acquired land to be returned to their owners within 12 weeks, without demanding back from them the compensation amounts that were paid to those who accepted it.
The order says those who did not accept payment must also be paid compensation now at the current market price to indemnify for their loss of income all these years. With this judgement, the apex court overturns a 2012 order of the Calcutta High Court that upheld the acquisition.
Feather in Mamata’s Cap
In the limited context of Bengal’s politics, yesterday’s (Wednesday) judgement is a decisive clincher for Chief Minister
Mamata Banerjee and her Trinamool Congress
(TMC). She spearheaded the mass campaign against
land acquisition at Singur and an attempted
acquisition at Nandigram in the coastal district of West
Midnapore, and this campaign led the rout of the Left Front government in 2011, after 34 years in office.
The electoral victory gave Banerjee’s opposition to her predecessor’s land policy a thumping approval. However, her detractors, ranging from Ratan Tata, erstwhile chief of the Tata Group, and Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, former chief minister and a maverick communist who had sought private investment for the cash-strapped state at all cost, have maintained that the Singur land acquisition was legitimate, and Banerjee gave it a political twist to satisfy her personal political ambition. The Supreme Court judgement confutes their argument. For Banerjee, therefore, it is a double bonanza to get the nod of the electorate and the judiciary.
Difference of Opinion Between the Judges?
The judgement, nevertheless, may not help the cause
of reconciling the twin, and often contradictory,
demands of development and welfare of agriculture-dependent communities. The Singur land acquisition in
2006 happened against the background of the Land
Acquisition Act of 1894, framed to facilitate expansion
of the railways by the colonial regime. The illegality, or
otherwise, of the extant state government’s action can
therefore be assessed in the context of the existing
law of the day. In that law, the state is entitled to
acquire private land provided it is to be used for
“public purposes”.
However, the honourable judges seemed not to be on the same page on the Singur land acquisition being for public purpose. Justice Gowda held that there was no public purpose involved, as, among other reasons, the compensation was not paid from the state government’s treasury. On the contrary, Justice Misra said the amounts were paid by the West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation, which, as he held, is a part of the government. There are differences in the views of the two judges on required rules being followed in notifying the decision to acquire the concerned land, Justice Gowda holding that it wasn’t.
Judgement Doesn’t Offer Ray of Hope
- SC order on Singur is a win-win situation for chief minister
Mamata Banerjee who has just returned to power with a thumping majority.
- The judgement however, doesn’t offer an alternative to land
acquisition necessary for development.
- Even as the fate of the Land Bill hangs in balance, the
order is a severe blow to the ongoing projects.
Solution to Land Acquisition Disputes
The area in which the judgement seems somewhat
bewildering is its refusal to consider the debate raging
in the country since 2013, when the UPA government
enacted the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act.
Ostensibly triggered by Mamata Banerjee’s successful Singur movement, and its underlying political logic, it made land acquisition a tough task, subject to clearances at many levels and time-taking ‘social impact’ studies. The BJP, then in the opposition, supported the law, thinking perhaps that it would be politically incorrect to do so. But the law was a killer for mining and infrastructure investments and contributed the most, perhaps, to the notorious ‘policy paralysis’ of the last years of UPA rule.
Fate of Pending Projects
On coming to power, the NDA government under Prime Minster Narendra Modi tried to bring amendments to the law to make it compatible with the needs of expansion of railways, defence industries, PPP projects and affordable housing. But the amendment failed to cross the Upper House barricade and is now stuck in parliamentary cold storage.
In
desperation, the Centre has asked state governments
to frame land acquisition laws any which way they
like. And, expectedly, the Gujarat government was the first
to pass its own law, which, also expectedly, is a ditto
mark of the proposed amendment at the Centre.
The Singur judgement has no doubt further raised the TMC’s redoubtable political heft in Bengal. But it may prove to be a major roadblock if and when the national railway and industrial projects in the anvil near completion, and development needs far outweigh the small and depleting gains of a peasant economy. And that day may not be far away, with the proposed Dedicated Freight Corridor (DFC) from Ludhiana to Dankuni near Kolkata likely to be completed around 2019. If people are encouraged to stick to their farmland, with the might of law on their side, the wagons on the high-speed DFC cannot be filled with anything more worthwhile than paddy or wheat.
(The writer is a Kolkata-based senior journalist. He can be reached at @Sumitmitr. This is a personal blog and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for the same.)
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)