Legal experts said the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Bill passed in the Assembly on Tuesday may be in conflict with the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and may require Presidential assent for conversion into an Act. The lawyers have also pointed out that by blaming the Tatas for non-commissioning and abandoning the project, the bill was placed on “false premise”.
According to Mr Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, former Advocate General of Tripura, the Bill is “conflicting in interest” with the Central land acquisition act. The Bill also remains unclear on issues relating to compensation to be payable to Tata Motors, while categorisation of farmers as “willing” or “unwilling” based on the compensation taken is also subject to legal scrutiny.
Land transfer
“The transfer of land to Tata Motors by the West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation (WBIDC) was done under the Transfer of Property Act. Any reclamation should be done within the purview of the same Act. Bringing in a new Bill will make the Government supercede the Act in force,” he added.
According to Mr Arunava Ghosh, the Governor may send the Bill for Presidential assent. He further added that putting the onus on the Tatas for “abandoning the project” is an incorrect version as the Tatas were forced out of the State by Ms Mamata Banerjee. “If you ask me, the entire Bill is based on a false premise,” he told
The Chief Minister, Ms Mamata Banerjee however, said the Bill will “do justice” for the wrongs meted out to the people of Singur.
Stressing that her Government did not want to discriminate between “willing” and “unwilling” farmers, she maintained that names of willing farmers had not been recorded.
She had also insisted that farmers will get ownership of the returned land through the proposed Act. “Land will not be transferred on a leasehold basis,” Ms Banerjee said.
The Chief Minister said her Government was committed to “undo injustice” rather than pondering over technicalities. Her jibe was aimed at the Opposition, who had questioned the justification of the Bill being moved by the Commerce and Industry Department instead of the Land and Land Reforms Department.