SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(Cal) 71

S.S.NIJJAR, PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE
Joydeep Mukherjee – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Siddhartha Sankar Ray, Somendra Chandra Bose, Sundrananda Paul, Tarun Kr. Chatterjee, Tapas Kr. Bhanja in W.P. No. 6486 (W) of 2007 & W.P. No. 7048 (W) of 2007;
Kalyan Kr. Bandopadhyay, Mintu Kr. Goswami, Jayjeet Ganguly, Somnath Roy Chowdhury, Ramanath Guha Thakurta for the petitioners in W.P. No. 25625 (W) of 2006: W.P. No. 5267 (W) 2007; W.P. No. 5268 (W) of 2007; W.P. No. 5269 (W) of 2007 and W.P. No. 8162 (W) of 2007;
Santi Ranjan Das, Kedar Nath Yadav for the petitioners in W.P. No. 23836 (W) of 2006 with CAN No. 8742/06 with CAN No. 5961/07 with CAN No. 1124/07 with CAN No. 4960/07;
Arunabha Ghosh, Soumya Majumdar, Anindya Lahiri, Arnab Chakraborty, S. M. Obaidullah for the petitioners in W.P. No. 2598 (W) of 2007;
Tapas Kr. Bhattacharya appeared in person in W.P. No. 25248 (W) of 2006;
Balai Chandra Roy, ld. Adv. General, Shovan Lal Hazra, ld. Govt. Pleader, Sandip Srimani, ld. Addl. Govt. Pleader, A. N. Banerjee, Sitaram Samanta for the State;
Anindya Mitra, Jayanta Mitra, Hirak Mitra, Debol Banerjee, Jishu Saha, Abhrajit Mitra, Swatarup Banerjee, Samrat Mukherjee for the Land Acquisition Collector;
P. C. Sen, S. K. Kapur, Bhaskar Sen, S. Sarkar, Ashoke Banerjee, Saptansu Basu, Tilk Kr. Bose, Arindam Banerjee, Indranil Bose for the WBIDC;
S. Pal, S. Mitra, A. Deb, A. K. Datta, S. Datta, K. Poddar for the Tata Motors Ltd. & Ratan Tata.

JUDGMENT

PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.: These writ petitions were filed as Public Interest Litigations challenging the acquisition proceedings in respect of about 1000 acres of land within the following mouzas, a) Gopalnagar, b) Singherbheri, c) Beraberi, d) Khaserberi and e) Bajemelia within the Police Station of Singur in the District of Hooghly.

2. Such acquisition process has been challenged by the writ petitioners mainly on the ground that the said area of land is the source of livelihood of 10,000 agricultural households and destroying the most of fertile lands which cannot be replaced, apart from the other subsidiary industries.

3. The writ petitioners challenged the entire acquisition process on the ground of mala fide and arbitrary intention and further for violating the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is further stated that for setting up a Small Car Project by Tatas would have been an acquisition of land following the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 [hereinafter referred to as “the said Rules”) and in order to avoid the said procedure it has been stated that the acquisition will be for a public purpose, namely, for employment generation and so





























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top