Tata Motors Ltd on Tuesday contested the September 28 verdict of Mr Justice I.P. Mukerji of the Calcutta High Court for “rewriting” the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act 2011.
Mr Justice Mukerji, in his order on September 28, held the Act to be valid but noticed “some vagueness and uncertainty with regard to payment of compensation”, which was a natural right of Tata Motors. To “rectify” the same, he ruled that compensation be awarded by applying the principles — Sections 23 and 24 — of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Describing the State's action “as acquisition of land” once leased out to Tata Motors and not a “takeover” as was mentioned by the Singur Act, Mr Justice Mukerji held that the principles of determining compensation (under Singur Act) could not be contrary to the Land Acquisition Act so as to avoid repugnancy.
“The Judiciary can interpret laws, but the Court cannot rewrite the law,” Tata counsel Mr Samaraditya Pal told the Division Bench of Mr Justice Ghose and Mr Justice Chaudhuri on Tuesday. The company challenged the constitutional validity of the Singur Act.
Referring to Article 14 of the Constitution — the Right to Equality before Law — Mr Pal said that the State could not indulge in “hostile discrimination.” Pointing out that the Singur Act justified state action against Tata “in view of non-commissioning and abandoning Small Car Project”, he argued: “There may be other lands given to others (companies). If non-utilisation is the criteria, why do you restrict it to one, the criteria must be applied to all.”