Skip to main content

Mandatory procedures not followed in acquiring Singur land

The Supreme Court today quashed the acquisition of 1000 acres of land in Singur by West Bengal’s Left Front government in 2006 for Tata’s Nano project concluding that it was “illegal” and proceeded ahead in “violation of law”. Civil rights organizations, several of them backed by present chief minister Mamata Banerjee, had moved the apex court challenging the acquisition. The court was hearing a bunch of petitions challenging the quashing of Singur Land Acquisition Act brought in by the Mamata government by the Calcutta high court. Mamata government also became a petitioner later challenging quashing of the Act. A bench of justice V Gopala Gowda and justice Arun Mishra while pronouncing the judgment directed that the land be given back to farmers in 12 weeks. Though the Judges agreed on conclusion, differed on the question whether the land acquisition was  for public purpose or not . Justice Gowda, held that  the acquisition of land by taking it away from the farmers cultivating it cannot be said as a “public purpose”, but Justice  Mishra held that the acquisition was ultimately for the public purpose. Significantly the bench ruled that the farmers who got compensation from the government need not have to return it because “they were deprived of their livelihood for the last 10 years”.

SC had repeatedly told senior lawyers who had appeared for the company “You cannot argue that they (farmers) have accepted the award so they cannot challenge the acquisition. This case is under different footing and there are several issues which needs to be answered.”

Read more at: http://www.livelaw.in/sc-scraps-land-acquisition-tatas-car-plant-wb-slams-procedure-adopted/

Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/sc-scraps-land-acquisition-tatas-car-plant-wb-slams-procedure-adopted/

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more