Tata Nano Singur Case Study Pdf Examples

Aug 31, 2016 - project of Tata Motors at Singur. Abovementioned case makes it clear that land can be acquired. The definition of public purpose as contained in. Acquisition Collector to survey and decide whether the lands. Tata Nano Singur Controversy refers to the controversy generated by land acquisition of the proposed Nano factory of Tata Motors at Singur in Hooghly district.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday termed the 2006 acquisition of nearly 1,000 acres of land in West Bengal’s Singur district illegal and void. The land, acquired by the state government, was meant for Tata Motors Ltd’s plant to build the world’s cheapest car, the Nano. The acquisition triggered violence, leading to translocation of the factory, a change of government and protracted litigation. A bench of justices V. Gopala Gowda and Arun Mishra said the acquisition of 997 acres by West Bengal’s Left Front government for the Tata Motors plant in Singur failed to meet the requirements of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and directed the state government to return the land to its owners in 12 weeks. The court directed the state’s survey settlement department to identify portions of the land to be returned to landowners.

It also said that the compensation paid to landowners will not be recovered by the state government. The court further allowed landowners to withdraw compensation which is in deposit with the collector or the court. In the course of its judgement, the court set aside an 18 January 2008 decision of the Calcutta high court that dismissed writ petitions challenging the acquisition of several areas in Singur district. The high court had upheld the acquisition, saying it was for the public good. The two Supreme Court judges gave separate reasons for terming the acquisition illegal.

Justice Gowda, in his ruling, said the state government did not follow the requirements laid down in the Land Acquisition Act, and circumvented them under the guise of “public purpose”. Land was acquired only for Tata Motors and as such it could not be called a “public purpose” under the Act, he said.

Andrea bocelli marta sanchez vivo por ella descargar mp3 converter. Nevertheless, we're doing our best to complete the custom accompaniments catalog.

Justice Mishra, however, said that the acquisition would ultimately benefit people by creating employment opportunities and industrialization. However, he agreed with his colleague on the violation of the provision of the Land Acquisition Act (Section 5A) that mandates a hearing of objections against acquiring land for public purposes. “The inquiry held under Section 5A is a farce and an eyewash; neither the collector nor the state government considered the matter with objectivity as mandated,” he said. Justice Gowda said the inquiry and the consequent approval for acquisition was done by the state government without applying its mind and by mechanically accepting the flawed report of the land acquisition collector.

The Land Acquisition Act of 1894 has since been revisited. In 2013, Parliament passed the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act. This is the current law of the land. But as the acquisition predates the 2013 law, the earlier Act applies. “This case is one of the last legacies of 1894 Act.

It will not impact future acquisitions because now there is the 2013 law. However, pending litigation under the old law will be impacted by this. The fact that the court quashed the acquisition because objections were not satisfactorily heard and there was meagre compensation paid could be used for pending litigation under the old Act,” said Muhammed Khan, a lawyer who helped draft the 2013 land acquisition law.

Tata Motors was given the land to build its plant, but in the wake of violent protests by the Trinamool Congress party, the company moved its project to Sanand in Gujarat. Soon after coming to power in 2011, Mamata Banerjee’s government passed a law to take back the land from Tata Motors. The firm moved the Calcutta high court, which declared the law unconstitutional. The West Bengal government’s appeal against this order is pending before the Supreme Court. “The case in which the judgement was delivered today related to the acquisition of land by the state government before it was leased to Tata Motors. Our case relating to Singur Act of 2011 is yet to be heard by the Supreme Court. We will study today’s judgement in detail before commenting further on the same,” a Tata Motors spokesperson said.