The Supreme Court found the process under which the Left Front government acquired the Singur land faulty. The Telegraph looks at the conclusions of the judges and what the Left government had done in 2006

• Was the Singur land acquired for a public purpose or for a company (Tata Motors)?

Justice Gowda: For a company, not for a public purpose

Justice Mishra: For a public purpose (Disagrees with Justice Gowda)

What the Left government did and why: It invoked provisions of acquisition for public purpose projects, saying the land was being acquired for the West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation (WBIDC)

 

• If the land has been acquired for a company, did the state government comply with Part VII of the land acquisition act of 1894?

Justice Gowda: No, it did not comply with Part VII

Justice Mishra: Part VII was not necessary in this case (Disagrees with Justice Gowda)

What the Left government did and why: It bypassed Part VII of the 1894 Act and acquired the land applying Part II of the 1894 act.

Part-II dealt with the acquisition of land for public purposes. This part was primarily used for acquiring land for government projects or projects taken up by government-owned companies. According to officials in the land reforms department, in some cases, land for joint-venture projects was also acquired using this provision. Under this provision, the state government could issue an acquisition notification without conducting any prior inquiry.

Part VII dealt with acquisition of land for private companies. This part provided several safeguards to the landlosers. If the government wanted to acquire land using this provision, it had to conduct a prior inquiry to establish that the project would be useful for local people. The government had to enter into an agreement with the company for which the land would have been acquired, pointing out how the cost of the acquisition would be met. The government would have had to publish the agreement in the form of a gazette notification before issuing the acquisition notice.

The Left Front had bypassed Part VII to avoid several procedures, including publishing the agreement signed between the WB> DC and the Tatas. The agreement, the government had said, included commercial confidential information that might have helped competition.

(The 1894 law was replaced in 2013 with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act.)

 

• Did the land acquisition collector conduct an inquiry as laid down in the law?

Justice Gowda: No. (Rules against the Left government)

Justice Mishra: No. (Rules against the Left government)

What the Left government did and why: It did not conduct any inquiry before publishing the acquisition notice.

According to land reforms department officials, Part VII of the 1894 act speaks about an "enquiry" before issuing the acquisition notification.

But Part II, using which the Left government had acquired the Singur plot, did not specify about any inquiry prior to issuance of acquisition notices. Hence, no preliminary inquiry was ordered, said land department sources.

 

• Did the land acquisition collector assign reasons for rejecting objections raised by landowners and cultivators after application of mind?

Justice Gowda: No. (Rules against the Left government)

Justice Mishra: No. (Rules against the Left government)

What the Left government did and why: An official who was posted in Hooghly in 2006-07 said the officer concerned had heard objections from the landowners in phases but never gave written explanations to the petitioners as there was no such provision in the act. "According to the act, the official was bound to send a report along with his recommendations to the government after holding the hearings of the objections... I don't know whether the reports were submitted before the court," the official said.

 

• Was the decision of the land acquisition collector based on the decision of the state government taken prior to issuing notification under the land acquisition act?

Justice Gowda: Judge rules against the Left government

Justice Mishra: Judge rules against the Left government

What the Left government did and why: The Left government had taken the decision to acquire the Singur land at a cabinet meeting first. According to government officials, it is the standard practice in Bengal that any decision related to land acquisition is taken by the cabinet first and then required instructions are sent to the ground level.

 

• Was the compensation decided after holding due inquiry and also in compliance with the principles of natural justice?

Justice Gowda: Rules against the Left government

Justice Mishra: Rules against the Left government

What the Left government did and why: The Left Front government had announced compensation for land losers soon after declaring its intent to acquire the land. Although the act speaks of a thorough enquiry before declaring the compensation, sources said, it was declared in a hurry based on the reports of block-level officials to complete the acquisition process at the earliest. This was the reason the Left government had to modify and enhance the compensation package midway through the acquisition process.

 

• Was the compensation based on proper appreciation of the market value of the land?

Justice Gowda: Judge rules against the Left government

Justice Mishra: Judge rules against the Left government

What the Left government did and why: The government was in a hurry to hand over the land to the Tatas because of intense competition among states for investments. This was the reason compensation package was fixed based on the basis of block-level records. As block-level records are not updated over the years, there was every possibility that a landloser might not get proper price for the land.

"The government should have considered appreciation of the market value of plots. But unfortunately it was not done," said a land department official.