SC-LD SINGUR 3

Justice Mishra also differed with his colleague Justice Justice Mishra also differed with his colleague JusticeGowda on the question if the land had been acquired for theTatas, then whether the state government had complied with theprovisions of the Land Acquisition Act. It was held by Justice Gowda that the legal provisionswere not adhered to by the authorities concerned in theacquisition process. Justice Gowda said the acquisition for a company can beundertaken under the law dealing with public purpose, but"before land could be acquired, the procedure consistent withthe statutory provisions of law must be followed mandatorily." "There is nothing in law which would support theacquisition of land for a particular Company under the guiseof ‘public purpose’, rendering the exception provided underSection 3(f)(viii) of the LA Act useless and nugatory,"Justice Gowda said. "The acquisition of land in the instant case in favourof the Company is thus improper for not following themandatory procedure prescribed under Part VII of the L.A. Actand Rules and therefore the acquisition proceedings are liableto be quashed," he said. Both the judges concurred in their findings on threeissues related to inquiry to be conducted by the authoritiesunder the law for acquisition. They also concurred in their opinion on questions whetherthe Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) assigned reasons in hisreport for rejecting objections of the farmers afterapplication of mind. The third question on which both judges agreed waswhether the report of the LAC was based on the decision of thestate government taken prior to issuing notification. Justice Gowda said that even though the farmers did notappear before the LAC, "the objections filed by them ought tohave been considered objectively by him as required underSection 5-A (2) of the L.A. Act." (More) PTI MNL SJK RKSARC