Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
Notice (8): Undefined variable: urlPrefix [APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8]latest-news-updates/legal-debate-on-singur-land-status-15848.html"/> LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Legal debate on Singur land status | Im4change.org
Resource centre on India's rural distress
 
 

Legal debate on Singur land status
-The Times of India

The legal roller coaster over the state Singur Act doesn't have much of an impact at ground zero because the division bench stayed the order for two months. The stay apart, opinions vary over the implication of the judgment.

While high court lawyer and former mayorBikash Ranjan Bhattacharya argues that the tenor of the judgment calls for return of the possession rights on 950 acres of Singur land on lease to Tata Motors, high court lawyer andTrinamool Congress MP Kalyan Bandyopadhyay maintains that the bench didn't pass any directive of "resumption of possession."

Bhattacharya says that the stay on Singur land prevents the government from returning the land to unwilling owners. "It means something more — return of the land to Tata Motors and the revival of the 90-year lease that the government signed with the Tatas in 2007," he says.

"It is another matter that the division bench granted a two-month stay on the judgment, which holds that the entire process of reclaiming the already acquired land and returning it to a section of land owners is void. With the state Singur Act struck down, the position reverts to where it was before the promulgation of the Act," Bhattacharya said.

The senior lawyer held that the judgment may come handy for Tata Motors to seek the return of possession of 950 acres leased out to them. "The judgment calls for revival of the lease. I proposed to the state government to negotiate with the Tata Motors about setting up the industry in Singur," Bhattacharya said.

Citing the objects and reasons of the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act. 2011, Bhattacharya argued that the state law doesn't pertain to return of the land to unwilling farmers only. Prior to that the Act provides for "taking over of the land covered by lease to Tata Motors for sole purpose of small car manufacturing project." Now when the Act has been scrapped the lease stands.

Kalyan Bandyopadhyay doesn't buy the argument. "There is no point in stretching the court directive. The division bench has granted stay on its order and directed the state government to maintain status quo. But the bench is silent on returning the possession rights of the land to Tata Motors. Where is the directive? Show me," the high court lawyer said.

Bandyopadhyay pointed out that the bench hasn't given any direction on "resumption of possession" to Tata Motors. To make it simple, Kalyan Bandyopadhyay drew an analogy: "Suppose one moves court after losing his job and the court says that the dismissal was unjustified. Is this observation enough for the retrenched person to get back his job? The court has to issue an order directing his employer to reinstate the person."

The Trinamool MP held that the division bench judgment may give rise to a debate in academic circles but it has no bearing on the ground reality. "Yes, the bench has struck down the Act giving rise to academic debates on the implication of the judgment. But it makes a little difference for the layman because the bench didn't pass the directive to reverse the present arrangement in Singur," Bandyopadhyay said.

Another high court lawyer, Congressman Arunava Ghosh, held without going into the legalese that the division bench order has provided an escape route to the Mamata Banerjee government.

"The government could not identify more than 41 acres of land to be returned to the so-called unwilling farmers. Imagine the fate of the government trying to return this meagre land to a host of unwilling farmers, many of whom do not have the valid land documents. The identified land is even less than the 70 acres that the Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee government had offered to return following the Raj Bhavan talks," Ghosh said.