The Supreme Court has held that once compensation for land acquisition is accepted without protest, the acquisition cannot later be challenged. Dismissing the plea of M/s Santi Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. for restoration of its land acquired for the Tata Nano project in Singur, the Court clarified that the relief granted in Kedar Nath Yadav v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2016 SC 4156 was meant only for poor cultivators who lost their livelihood not for industrial entities that had accepted compensation and stayed inactive for years.
A Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi allowed the State’s appeal and set aside the Calcutta High Court’s 2017 and 2018 orders directing restoration of 28 bighas of land, including structures, to Santi Ceramics. The company had received ₹14.54 crore as compensation in 2006 and remained silent for a decade before seeking parity with farmers after Kedar Nath Yadav.
The Court observed that extending the Singur relief to industrial enterprises would “set an undesirable precedent,” encouraging strategic inaction and opportunistic claims. It reiterated that Kedar Nath Yadav was a targeted public interest remedy for disadvantaged agricultural communities, not a general restitution for all landowners.
While dismissing the company’s challenge, the Supreme Court issued specific directions regarding existing structures and recovery:
1. Santi Ceramics may remove remaining structures, plant, and machinery within three months, in the presence of officials designated by the District Magistrate, Hooghly.
2. Alternatively, the company may request the State to auction its structures and machinery; it will receive the proceeds after deduction of auction expenses.
3. The Land Acquisition Collector shall recalculate compensation for structures after deducting the salvage value, but no recovery of excess payment shall be made.
4. As possession had been delivered under the High Court’s now-set-aside order, the State shall re-demarcate and resume possession after compliance with the above directions.
5. All assessment and compliance exercises must be completed within four months from the date of judgment.
Appearances
Appellants- Mr. Soumya Majumdar, Advocate; Mr. Sourav Roy, Advocate; and Mr. Arijit Majumdar, Advocate.
Respondent- Mr. S. P. Roy Chowdhury, Senior Advocate; with Ms. Rituparna De, Advocate.
