IMPORTANT POINT
Restoration of acquired land – Benefits of quashing do not accrue to persons who were not parties unless Court has struck down entire acquisition on fundamental grounds applicable to all – Permitting industrial entities to claim restoration benefits from litigation they chose not to pursue would establish an undesirable precedent.

JUDGMENT :

SURYA KANT, J.

Leave granted.

2. The instant appeal has been preferred by the State of West Bengal against the judgment dated 11.10.2018 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta (High Court) in MAT No. 1260/2017 (Impugned Judgment). By way of the Impugned Judgment, the High Court has upheld the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 29621/2016, directing the State to restore 28 Bighas of land (Subject Land), including all structures erected thereon, to M/s Santi Ceramics Private Limited (Respondent No.1).

3. The controversy arises in the aftermath of this Court's judgment in Kedar Nath Yadav v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2016 SC 4156, whereby the land acquisition proceedings for establishing the manufacturing plant of TATA Motors’ then flagship car “NANO” were quashed. To explicate, in 2006, pursuant to TATA Motors' decision to establish this facility in Singur, Hooghly District, West Bengal, the Appellants had initiated acquisition spanning over 1000 acres (Singur Project). The acquisition encompassed agricultural lands and lands converted for non-agricultural purposes. The instant appeal concerns restoration of the Subject Land, which formed part of the acquisition. The High Court has accorded restoration in favour of Respondent No.1 on ground of parity with cultivators to whom such a relief was granted by this Court in Kedar Nath Yadav (supra).

A. FACTS

4. To appreciate the genesis of the dispute at hand, it is necessary to examine the factual matrix, which is set out below:

4.1. Respondent No.1 purchased the Subject Land in the year 2001- 2002 with the objective of establishing a manufacturing facility for the production of ceramic electrical insulators. The Subject Land at the time was statedly an agricultural land. Upon application by Respondent No.1, the District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Hooghly, granted approval on 09.04.2003 for its conversion to industrial use, thereby enabling the formalization of commercial operations on the premises.

4.2. Following the approval, Respondent No.1 established a manufacturing unit, replete with necessary infrastructure, plant and machinery, and commenced industrial operations. This trajectory of events took a decisive turn on 21.07.2006 when the Land Acquisition Collector, Hooghly (LAC), issued notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1894 Act), initiating acquisition proceedings for the Singur Project.

4.3. In response, Respondent No.1 filed objections under Section 5- A(1) of the 1894 Act on 21.08.2006, seeking exclusion of its operational manufacturing unit from the acquisition. The objections were rejected by LAC, whereupon the Appellants issued a declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act on 30.08.2006. Pursuant to the declaration, the LAC passed the award for the Subject Land on 25.09.2006, quantifying total compensation at INR 14,54,75,744, comprising INR 5,46,75,744 for land value and INR 9,08,00,000 for structures. The said compensation was duly deposited, and the Appellants thereafter took possession of the acquired land, which was thereupon handed over to TATA Motors.

4.4. The Singur Project soon evolved into a matter of considerable public interest and legal controversy, generating widespread protests by affected farmers against displacement from their holdings. The acquisition, impacting fertile agricultural land, highlighted the tension between industrial development and farming communities. Among the various affected parties, one Kedarnath Yadav approached the High Court through a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in W.P. No. 23836 (W) of 2006, challenging the acquisition proceedings. Several similar writ petitions were filed by other affected parties, which were then clubbed together and dismissed by a common judgment dated 18.01.2008, rendered by a Division Bench of the High Court. The acquisition was upheld after holding that it was in public interest and for public purpose.

4.5. Subsequently, in 2010, TATA Motors