I.P.MUKERJI

1. TWO writ applications preferred by Tata Motors Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Tatas) were heard by me between 28th July, 2011 and 16th September, 2011, when hearing was concluded. One challenges the constitutionality of the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011, hereafter the impugned Act and the action of the State thereunder; the other, the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Rules, 2011, framed under it.

2. The history before institution of this litigation is of paramount importance. I will try to recount the events, which finally led to this contested litigation. In and around 2006, the Government of West Bengal was trying to invite the Tatas to set up an establishment for the manufacture of their conceived small car Nano. The Tatas, it seems to me, were being similarly entreated by some other states in the country, to set up the industry there. One of such states was Uttarakhand. It offered them many incentives and concessions. The Tatas were willing to consider investment in West Bengal provided its government was able to outmatch these benefits. I have no doubt, in my mind, that the government was able to convince them that they would make available to them comparable if not better incentives, concessions and exemptions. The Tatas did decide to manufacture this small car here. They announced to the world that the manufactured car would be cleared from the Singur factory in District Hooghly in October, 2008. According to records, the government promised them land at this place for setting up this project. More than 1000 acres of land were required. By the end of May, 2006, the government started proceeding in the most expeditious manner to provide this land. The proposal for providing this land was approved by the cabinet in its meeting held on 31st May, 2006. By his letter dated 6th July, 2006, the Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal wrote to the West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation (WBIDC), the fourth respondent, the District Magistrate being the fifth respondent and the Land and Land Revenue Department being the third respondent telling them that he was directed to ask them to initiate acquisition proceedings. It appears that almost immediately the fifth respondent who was also the Collector issued notices under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. I have noticed from annexure P2 that such notice was issued on 13th July, 2006 and notified in the gazette on 19th July, 2006. There are also notices issued subsequently and gazetted thereafter. 0ne was issued on 17th July, 2006, and gazetted on 20th July, 2006, another on 21st July, 2006 and gazetted on the same day, yet another on 24th July, 2006 and gazetted on the same day and so on. I have not been invited to any notice issued after 24th July, 2006, which makes me believe that the Section 4 notices were issued and gazetted between 13th July, 2006 and 24th July, 2006, more or less.

3. ACQUISITION proceedings were speedily undertaken. 997.11 acres of land were acquired. On 23rd September, 2006 and 25th September, 2006 awards of compensation were made by the Collector. On 4th October, 2006, this land was handed over to the fourth respondent. I am told that it was conveyed to them by the State. This respondent got its name mutated in the land records. 1.75 acres were set apart for setting up a power station and handed over to them on 26th October, 2006. Thereafter, the said respondent applied to the land department for conversion of land from agricultural land to factory land. It was decided by the State that 645.67 acres would be leased out to the Tatas.

4. ON 20th December, 2006, the fourth respondent wrote to the Tatas asking them to take permissive possession of 950 acres of land pending finalization of the lease deed and lease terms and conditions. The letter also mentioned that this respondent had acquired land measuring 997 acres. They proposed to lease out 950 acres of this land to