Intro: Janvi

Good Morning Everyone present here, We are going to present on the topic:-

“TATA SINGUR CASE OF LAND Acquisition”

So before going ahead with the presentation I would like to explain the term

Land Acqusition:- land acquisition is a process through which state or union

government acquires the private land for public purpose. The concept of Land

Acqusition rests upon the doctrine of Eminent Domain.

There are 2 things in this definition which need attention they are:- Public

Purpose and Eminent Domain

So there is no precise definition of Public Purpose as we are living in a dynamic

society and public purpose changes from time to time but in general we can

define it as “Any work from which public derives benefit can be termed as the

public purpose”

Further the concept of land Acqusition is based on the doctrine of Eminent

Domain, Doctrine of eminent domain means the supreme power of the

government under which state can take appropriate private property for the

public projects, Though the owner of the property is unwilling to sell but in lieu

of Fair Compensation the appropriate government can acquire the property.

In India The Land Acquisition was governed by Land Acquisition Act 1894, but

in 2013 a new act came into force known as “LAND Acquisition Rehabilitation

and Resettlement Act, 2013. Towards the end of this presentation we would be
able to understand why there was a need to introduce a new Law for the Land

Acquisition Purpose.

LAQ 1894: Kanishk

The Land Acquisition Act was enacted with an intent to further governmental

purposes like roads and railway, police stations etc. But later with time the need

was felt that Act should also resort to public utilities such as water and

electricity companies or transport undertakings (even when they were privately

owned), or charitable institutions. Lands have also been acquired on large scale

for building of big dams and irrigation projects. The Land Acquisition Act 1894

was passed in order to remove certain anomalies in the existing system of land

acquisition as laid down by the previous legislation Act X of 1870.

The Main Objectives of the Land Acquisition Act 1894:

a. To abolish the institution of arbitrators, who previously were entrusted with

the duty of valuing the land. The 1870 Act laid down no rules for their

functioning and as such the entire system could be said to be incomplete.

b. The 1894 Act was supposed to incorporate detailed instructions regarding

compensation.

c. To avoid unnecessary delays, the position of the assessor was to be abolished.

This would lend fluidity and more transparency system.

d. The 1870 Act ensured that Collector was to bear the costs of litigation of the

final award was in excess of his tender. This led to ‘extravagant and speculative’

claims being made. The Land Acquisition Act made the award of the collector

final unless by a decree in a civil suit.

e. Similarly, in the 1870 Act, interest was payable on the amount of the award

arrived at from the date of the collector’s taking possession of the land. As the

interest would continue to accumulate through a period of litigation, this

prompted many land owners to go in for excessive litigation, thereby slowing

down the entire process of acquisition as well as draining the State exchequer.

f. The previous rule of compulsory reference in cases where there was no

agreement amongst the several claimants as regards apportionment amongst the

claimants was also abolished. In the 1894 Act, the collector may make an

apportionment against the claimants and if a person is aggrieved, he may within

a period of time specified in section 18, apply to the collector for a reference to

the Courts

The object and intention of the Act is to comprise in one general Act sundry and

elaborate provisions relating to acquisition of land for “public purpose”, for

assessing the amount of compensation and it is for avoiding the necessity of

repeating such provisions in subsequent Acts dealing with acquisitions. As well

as for ensuring uniformity of the provisions the sections of the Land Acquisition
Act with other Acts introduced subsequently, thus the Act 1 of 1894 came into

existence.

Facts of the Case: Pratham

 March 2006 - In order to meet the needs of its citizens and address its

unemployment issue, the State of West Bengal developed an industrial

policy that included the establishment of automobile industries.

Subsequently Tata Motors set up a manufacturing unit for its ‘Nano’

Project in the Singur district of WB.

 Particulars of the project being: the project was looking at a direct

investment by TML of Rs.650 crores in the form of plant and machinery

and the IT infrastructure, Rs. 176 crores in a factory building that

included utilities like roads, water lines, sewage lines, power lines,

drainage and effluent treatment plants, etc., and Rs. 200 crores in a

township with about 2000 dwelling units with an average area of 1000/-

sq. ft. The record note also refers to a vendor park's indirect investment in

equipment and machinery valued at an additional 90 crores.

 Incentives and Concessions offered by the state government: The

State Government would lease the property to TML at an annual lease

rental of Rs. 90 lakhs for 30 years, renewable at TML's discretion for

additional blocks of 30 years. The State Government would develop the

land and build the factory building including the facilities such as roads,

power line, water line, drainage, sewage, effluent treatment plant, and
 other utilities e.g. Air compressors, standby generators, and LPG storage

yard. The lease rental will be negotiated at each renewal. However,

compared to the rental that was in effect on the renewal date, the increase

in rent will never be greater than 500%.

 Total area acquired by Tata Motors being 997 acres.

 As per Provisions of Section 5-A of the LAQ Act 1894 after the

notification, the objections, if any, may be submitted in writing to the

Collector. The Collector, after the receipt of such objections, needs to

give an opportunity of being heard to the person so objecting. The

Collector is then required to conduct an inquiry and submit a report in

that respect to the State Government for its consideration. In the instant

case, five objection petitions were received from the land

owners/cultivators. The collector concluded that those objections may be

ignored in the greater interest of the public (employment generation and

socio-economic development of the area) and the State and submitted

his reports to the State Government dated 29.08.2006. Pursuant to the

report of the Land Acquisition Collector, the State Government issued

notification under Section 6 of the L.A. Act published in the official

gazette dated 30.08.2006.

 The official lease deed was signed on March 15, 2007. After that, Writ

Petitions were used to challenge the acquisition proceedings before the

High Court of Calcutta. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court

 dismissed the Writ Petitions by common judgment and order dated

18.01.2008 and upheld the acquisition of the land, concluding that it was

done so in the public interest and for a public purpose. As stated clearly in

the cause title of this judgment, the same was contested through a Special

Leave Petition (SLP) (Civil) No. 8463 of 2008 and other connected SLPs

before this Court.

 It was, however, at around that time that the local population started

protesting against the acquisition of the land and setting up of the factory.

Numerous incidents of blockade, protests and violence were reported in

the print and electronic media. By letter dated 10.11.2008 addressed to

the Director General of Police, West Bengal, TML informed that it is

suspending operations as the circumstances were no longer conducive for

them to work in a peaceful manner. TML started removing the

equipments, machines and other materials from the site from 10.11.2008

onwards.

Issues of the Case

 The state government of West Bengal acquired 997 acres of land in the

Singur District, most of which was farmlands and pastures citing

eminent domain. The farmers stripped of their livelihood, along with

environmental and political activists approached the courts with the

question – is this acquisition truly in the interest of the public? Thus

 the primary issue here was whether the acquisition under the LAQ

Act 1894 by the state of WB was valid on the grounds of ‘public

interest’ and according to the provisions of Part II of the said act.

 Whether the lands involved in these proceedings have been acquired

for a public purpose or for a Company (TML)?

 Whether the inquiry as contemplated under Section 5-A(2) of the L.A.

Act has been duly conducted by the Land Acquisition Collector?

 Whether the compensation awarded in favour of the land

owners/cultivators is based on a proper appreciation of the market

value of the land?

Judgement

The two-judge bench of the Hon’ble SC ruled that the land shall be given
back to the land owners and compensation if any paid to them shall not be
recovered from them and those who have not collected it are free to
collect the same in lieu of damages for deprivation of possession for ten
years. The impugned orders are set aside, the appeals are allowed with the
aforesaid directions. Parties to bear their own costs.

Apart from this unanimous decision, the two judges disagreed on a lot of
points and delivered a split verdict on the following issues:

 On the issue of whether the inquiry was lawfully carried out by

the collector, the 2 judges failed to come to a consensus leaving
the issue unresolved. On the issue of compensation for the
landowners Justice Mishra was of the opinion that the SC did
 not have jurisdiction for the same as it was an issue to be
adjudicated upon by the Collector. Justice Gowda insisted upon
the quashing of the order delivered by the collector as due
process of law was not followed.
 As the term ‘public purpose’ or ‘public interest’ is quite vague and

inclusive, Justice Mishra and Justice Gowda had different interpretations

of the same. According to one, public purpose was served and for the

other it was not. It was however agreed upon that the acquisition by TML

and the WB Gov was not according to the provisions of part 7 of the

LAQ Act. The land falling under the acquisition was therefore ordered to

be returned to the original holders and occupants.

By analysing the judgement, we have come to the opinion that owing to the
irregularities and unclarities of the 1894 LAQ Act, justice was not truly
served to those who suffered. Those who faced losses were not compensated
fairly. The Act left a lot of questions unanswered, leaving a lot of gaps in
interpretation. Even-though the verdict was in favour of the cultivators and
land owners, they derived no actual benefit from it.

PROCESS OF LAND ACQUISITION REHABILITATION AND

RESETTLEMENT ACT 2013: Vishal

The Act left a lot of questions unanswered, leaving a lot of gaps in

interpretation. Even-though the verdict was in favour of the cultivators and
land owners, they derived no actual benefit from it. Now let's see what
improvement the new act has brought in the process of land acquisition.
The process begins in the new act of 2013, the appropriate government can
acquire the property either for itself or for a public private partnership or any
private company for public purpose.

The process of acquisition of land starts when the appropriate government

receives the proposal. On receiving the proposal, the appropriate government
will carry out the Social Impact Assessment study in consultation with the
concerned panchayat or municipality or municipal corporation under section
4. This study shall be completed within 6 months from the date of
commencement.

The said report must include: -

1. Whether the acquisition serves public purpose.

2. Estimation of affected families and among them how many are likely to
be displaced.

3. The views of affected families must also be recorded.

4. Whether any alternative land was considered and found not feasible.

5. And lastly overall cost of the project.

Along with the Social Impact Assessment Study Environmental Impact

Assessment must also be carried out simultaneously.

After the study has been carried out the report must be published and made
available in local language to the panchayats, municipality or corporation.
Under section 7 of the said act The SIA report will have to be assessed by an
independent multidisciplinary expert group. The expert group have to submit
their OPINION within 2 months of its constitution. The opinion must be
on :-
Whether the proposed project will serve the public purpose

Whether the potential benefits outweigh the social cost and social impact
and,

Whether the extent of land proposed to be acquired is the absolute bare

minimum

Whether there are other less displacing options available or not

Further, as per section 8(2) of the Act appropriate government will examine
the report of expert group on SIA and report of the collector if any, and after
considering both thr repots the government recommended an area for
acquisition

In addition to this Appropriate government will make sure that prior consent
of the affected families in certain cases:-

In case of acquisition for private companies at least 80 per cent and

In case of acquisition for private public partnership projects: - at least 70 per

cent.

After this under section 11 a preliminary notification must be issued by

appropriate government in at least one regional language, if preliminary
notification is not issued within 12 months from the date of appraisal of the
social impact assessment report submitted, then such report shall be deemed
to have lapsed.

After the preliminary notification is published any interested party may raise
objection within 60 days from such publication. The collector will conduct a
public hearing on such objections and prepare a report. The same report shall
be forwarded to the appropriate government whose decision will be final.
Simultaneously the administrator for rehabilitation and resettlement will
conduct the survey amongst the affected families. Based on the survey a
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme is drafted. This scheme will be
submitted to the collector who will review the scheme with the rehabilitation
and resettlement committee.

After this the scheme along with the suggestions of collector will be sent to
the commissioner of rehabilitation and resettlement for his approval.

Appropriate government after being satisfied with the above said report will
issue a formal declaration that the land is needed for public purpose and
collector shall publish the same formal declaration along with summary of
R&R scheme but no declaration will be published unless the compensation
has been deposited either in full or part.

The land is marked, measured and planned by the collector and project
proponent under Section 20

Final notice under Section 21 is given to the persons interested to make any
claims to compensations and rehabilitation and resettlement about the
acquisition before the Collector within a period of 60 days.

Land acquisition award is made by the collector under Section 23 to persons

claiming compensation and rehabilitation and resettlement after enquiry.

Possession of land shall be taken by the Collector under Section 38.

Now, Janvi will take you all to interesting analysis

So till now we studied what exactly is land acqusisition process of LA as per

1894 and process of LA as per 2013 law and TATA SINGUR CASE
So to understand why there was need of repealing the old law and enacting a
new act. Before going ahead, I would Like to as question from you all

WHAT IN YOUR OPINION COULD HAVE BEEN CONSEQUENCE OF

THE CASE IF LA ACT OF 2013 WOULD HAVE BEEN APPLICABLE
TO TATA SINGUR INSTEAD OF LA ACT OF 1894?

Answer by 2-3

Yes, most of you are corrects let’s understand

1. The major reason of farmer unwillingness was inadequate amount of

compensation, because as per act of 1894, the compensation was decided
only by, the market-value of the land at the date of the publication of the
notification

So lets suppose a notification for acquire is govern in 1990 and land is

acquired in 2000 so the market value which will be considered was of 1990
but

Contrary in 2013 LA act the compensation is decided by

a) the market value, if any, specified in the Indian Stamp Act,

(b) the average sale price for similar type of land situated in the nearest
village or nearest vicinity area; or

______________

(c) consented amount of compensation as agreed upon under sub-section (2)

of section 2 in case of acquisition of lands for private companies or for
public private partnership projects,
Amongst the 3 which ever will be higher

Had the LARR Act been in place, the affected farmers in the Tata Singur
case might have received compensation that was perceived as fairer and
more reflective of the actual impact on their lives

2. As mentioned in 2013 process it is a duty upon appropriate government to

ensure that at least 80 percentage of affected people, which includes not only
those who have land but also whose lively hood primarily depends on that
land, consented for the acquisition if not then the project could be challenged
then and there and might also been discontinued. Farmers might not have to
suffer such a long deprivation of their land

3. The LA Act of 2013 provides for the resettlement and rehabilitation of

families displaced by the acquisition. Had the Act of 2013 been in place, the
affected farmers in the Tata Singur case might have received the scheme for
rehabilitation and if they are not satisfied with the compensation amount of
rehabilitation scheme this sort of issue a authority is constituted known as
“Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Authority. This could
have provided farmers greater platform which could have opened the doors
for them and do all this process with more and greater transparency,

IF LA ACT of 2013 would have been applicable there might be less loss of
farmers as well as TATA project.

Now you might ask me that we understood that Tata has a loss because they
have to shift their project resulting in increase of estimate cost but what is
loss of farmers ultimately they got their land back?

Now we must analyse the real picture of TATA singur

A. The Farmers of Singur who protested against the Tata nano project have
put their lands on sale immediately after 3 years it was returned to them.

Why the farmers want to sale their land?

There are number of reasons

The land Tata was acquiring was not farm land rather the whole land was
barren, the land is not suitable for agriculture

Secondly Tata had already started the project so there were numerous
cemented rocks still present on the tata plant site, though government tried to
remove it but at last the fertility of land was affected as a result of which
majorly of land of Singur is abanded

Only hope left is the durgapur expressway running through the area. In that
also there is a catch the lands which are situated within 200-300 meter from
the highway will only have the premium price there is majority of land
which will reap no benefits from the project.

Now before concluding we would like to show you a video of current

position of Singur and Sanand where the TATA projected shifted

IF land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act of 2013 had been

in place during the Tata Singur case, it could have led to a more structured
and inclusive process of land acquisition and probably the Singur might be at
better position where it is today but the last question which is open for all is
who suffered the loss finally?

Tata Nano project, farmers, or the leader who led this movement and holds
power till today?