‘Eminent domain principle’- Supreme Court ruling in Singur land project

 Eminent domain is the right or power of a sovereign state to take private property for public use without the owner’s consent, after payment of just compensation.
The Supreme Court in Kedar Nath Yadav v. State of West Bengal case invalidated the expropriation of land in Singur by the erstwhile Left Front government in Bengal, and ordered that the acquired properties be returned to their original landowners. The government’s acquisition of land for the purported use by Tata Motors Limited to construct a car factory was in violation of the procedural mandates of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
      Under the 1894 statute there were broadly two forms of recognised expropriation: one, acquisition for public purpose for governmental use, and two, forced transfer of land from private individuals to corporations for the latter’s commercial use. In the case of acquisitions intended to benefit companies, a special procedure was prescribed in Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act, which incorporated additional safeguards to ensure that governments don’t abuse their avowed power of eminent domain.
      Curiously though, when in 2006 the Communist Party of India (Marxist)-led regime in West Bengal acquired a tract of nearly 1,000 acres of land in Singur, a town located in the State’s Hooghly district, the government altogether ignored the binding requirements of Part VII. Instead, it acquired these lands, which were specifically identified by Tata Motors for constructing a manufacturing plant that would produce the Nano, envisioned as the world’s cheapest car, through a State-owned entity, the West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation. At the time, the government argued that this acquisition was in furtherance of the State’s new industrial policy, and since the plant would create jobs for hundreds of people it also fulfilled a public purpose. In 2008, the Calcutta High Court agreed with the State. But many small and marginal farmers, who had refused to accept compensation, filed appeals in the Supreme Court.
Over the years the idea of Public purpose has been expanded gradually by governments to allow for land acquisition. To a limited extent, some of these concerns have already been allayed by the enactment of the LARR (Land Acquisition rehabilitation and resettlement) Act in 2013. The statute not only defines public purpose with greater clarity, but also mandates that where acquisitions are made for the benefit of private companies, the prior consent of at least 80 per cent of the affected landowners ought to be secured.
       As events since 2013 have shown us, several States — Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan and Gujarat, among others — have already either amended the new law or enacted legislation of their own, creating sui generis processes that permit takings even in the absence of a direct public purpose. In other States such as Telangana, plans are afoot to amend the land law in such a manner as to do away with the requirement of consent when acquiring property for private companies so long as the acquisition is for a public purpose.
           Now the question is that whether this verdict will in any manner impact land acquisition in future. Since it is first such case, it is unlikely that it will significantly impact the investment and land acquisition. The Supreme Court judgement gives more emphasis on individual rights over the issue of larger public development. It also sets a precedent that in case of land acquisition for a public purpose, public purpose has to be proved beyond any reasonable doubt.

By: Deepak Thakur