SC-LD SINGUR 2

Justice Gowda, in his 104-pages judgement listed out Justice Gowda, in his 104-pages judgement listed outeight key issues for adjudication and referred to various caselaws in reaching to conclusions including that the acquisitionof land by the state for Tata Motors was not in accordancewith the law and not for "public purpose". "The acquisition of land for and at the instance of thecompany was sought to be disguised as acquisition of land for’public purpose’ in order to circumvent compliance with themandatory provisions of Part VII of the L.A. Act. "This action of the State Government is grossly perverseand illegal and void ab initio in law and such an exercise ofpower by the state government for acquisition of landscannot be allowed under any circumstance. "If such acquisitions of lands are permitted, it wouldrender entire Part VII of the L.A. Act as nugatory andredundant, as then virtually every acquisition of land infavour of a company could be justified as one for a ‘publicpurpose’ on the ground that the setting up of industry wouldgenerate employment and promote socio economic development inthe state," Justice Gowda said. On the other hand, Justice Mishra, who also penned arounda 100-page separate verdict, differed with the findings ofJustice Gowda that the land acquisition for the small carproject was not for "public purpose". "In my opinion it would remain acquisition for a publicpurpose as provided in section 3(f) of the Act; as also opinedin the various decisions to be adverted hereinafter of thisCourt," Justice Mishra said. "Public purpose has to be adjudged in the background ofthe facts of the instant case and the State of West Bengaldecided to make effort to establish manufacturing industrieswith a view to attract more private sector investment andforeign direct investment for industrialisation at par withthe model adopted by other progressive States," he said. Justice Mishra said the land acquisition for setting upsuch an industry would have ultimately benefitted the peopleand the very purpose of industrialisation, generating jobopportunities, hence it would be open to the State Governmentto invoke the legal provisions. "When Government wants to attract the investment, createjob opportunities and aims at the development of the State andsecondary development, job opportunities, such acquisition ispermissible for public purpose. The project in hand would havedefinitely served the public purpose and public purpose shouldbe liberally construed, not whittled down…" he wrote. (More)PTI MNL SJK RKSARC