Bar & Bench News Network
The Supreme Court today directed the West Bengal Government to stop the distribution of land to the farmers in Singur which was acquired for Tata Motors small car project Nano. The stay order of the Supreme Court has thrown out of gear the Government’s over ambitious plans to return the acquired land to farmers.
The vacation bench comprising of Justice P. Sathasivam and Justice A. K. Patnaik ordered, “As an interim measure we direct the West Bengal government not to allocate land to the persons concerned till further orders of the high court”.
This interim order of Supreme Court comes as a breather for Tata Motors after it was dispossessed of the land on June 21, 2011.
The newly-elected Trinamool Congress government in West Bengal has recently passed a Bill to return the land acquired from farmers. The Legislation became effective on June 21 and by the next morning, 1000 acres of land leased to the Tata Motors for 99 years was back in possession of the Government.
Tata Motors moved the Calcutta High Court seeking an injunction on the Bill, which enabled the State Government to cancel the land lease agreement between Tata Motors and the State Government. However, the High Court did not grant any relief to Tata Motors.
According to Live Mint, Senior Counsel Mukul Rohatgi appearing for Tata Motors contended, “The position must be frozen. Every day they are going on changing the position. The High Court has been hearing the interim issue for the last seven days and every day the government is doing whatever they want. This is the respect they have for the court”.
However, the company clarifed its position before the Supreme Court saying that it was currently only challenging the return of land to the farmers and not the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011. The constitutional validity of the Act is being contended by the company in the Calcutta High Court, where the High Court did not grant any interim relief.
The State Government’s counsel told the Supreme Court that the administration was only in the process of determining the allocation of the land and it was not physically handing over the property to the farmers yet. He said this would first have to be determined by a committee in order to settle any objections.
Senior Counsel P.P. Rao appearing for the State said, “I can’t do it until the High Court committee hears their claims. Unless they decide these objections, they cannot return the land”.
Given the urgency of the matter, the Supreme Court has asked the Calcutta High Court to give its decision within a month. However, the Court did not go into the details of a new controversial law enacted by the West Bengal legislature as the Calcutta High Court is still hearing the case.
In October 2008, Tata Motors had to pull out its Nano car project from Singur due to the increased agitation and aggression from the opposition party led by Mamta Banerjee. The project also faced severe agitation from various land owners. Tata Motors attributed the non-cooperation from the opposition party to be the sole reason for the pull out.
Tata Motors was represented by Senior Counsel Mukul Rohatgi, on instructions from Karanjawala & Co.
The State Government was represented by Senior Counsels P.P. Rao and Kalyan Banerjee.
|
Be the first to post a comment 
Related Stories
- Nimesh Kampani can finally return to India as AP High Court stays criminal proceedings
- Supreme Court stays Calcutta High Court order; AIBE results to be announced within 72 hours.
- 'Office of profit' amendment is constitutional, says Supreme Court
- Supreme Court adds 5 to strength
- Cipla scores victory in the Supreme Court
- Karanjawala represents Jaswant Singh in the Supreme Court
- Supreme Court curbs Mayawati's statue spree
Other News
- Linklaters Managing Associate Pranav Sharma to rejoin Amarchand Mangaldas as Partner
- Re-Upped Round up May 17
- Recruitment Tracker: Luthra top recruiter followed by Amarchand and AZB for NALSAR Class of 2012
- Siddharth Wahi joins JSA as Of Counsel; Former Baker Mckenzie SA to focus on Energy Sector
- Re-Upped Round up May 16
- Bombay HC taking proactive steps to fight pendency; Special committee to examine pending civil suits for speedy disposal
- CLAT Booze Bills: NUJS defies providing information under RTI Act
The Viewpoint: Indemnification Provisions - Is the fight on the indemnity clause worth the effort?
May 17, 2012 | Bar & Bench brings to you the twentieth article on 'The Viewpoint' series with its Knowledge Partner AZB & Partners. AZB Senior Associate Nandish Vyas and Associate Pranati Ishwar in this article seek to examine the context in which indemnification rights are relevant for acquisition transactions, and also seek to explore if there are areas where they are potentially not worth the comments (2)










