Tata Motors today pleaded that it would prefer a “workable solution” be reached between the company and the State Government to maintain status quo on Singur land till the petition is pending hearing.
The submission was made before the Court and in the presence of the Advocate-General (AG), Mr Anindya Mitra.
The company's plea came in the light of media reports (on June 24) that having established its possession over the abandoned Nano project site on June 21 evening, the State Government was now framing guidelines for redistribution of the land to ‘unwilling farmers', as part of the objectives of the now-disputed Singur Act.
“We do not know when the land distribution will start” company counsel, Mr Samaraditya Pal, prayed before the court and requested the AG Mr. Mitra to agree on a status quo till the petition is heard. Mr Pal has also told the court that he wanted to discus the issue with Mr Mitra.
On being asked by Mr Justice Soumitra Pal, the AG expressed his inability to make any ready commitment and sought time through the weekend to consider the proposal.
Later responding to query from media persons on the possibility of a “discussion between both sides”, Mr Mitra said “discussions should take place”. However, he did not clarify further on the issue.
Conflict with LA Act
Earlier in the day, Tata counsel pointed out to the Court that the Singur Act does not include “principles for provision of compensation” and questioned the legal validity of the Act through which the state had “compulsorily” taken over the land and assets from the company's possession.
Drawing a parallel with the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (LA Act), Mr Pal said that powers of compulsory acquisition are weighted against the provision of compensation and (or) solarium under the LA Act. “Such provisions are not laid out in the Singur Act”.
Moreover, the company said that the Singur Act, framed by the State is in conflict with the LA Act of the Centre – by offering to return the land to “unwilling farmers” – and should therefore be declared “illegal and void”. The company has also filed a supplementary affidavit to the court today.
State's version
Defending the State's position, the AG said that in the petition on June 22, Tata had expressed its apprehension that land would be taken away from its possession while in reality land was already vested by the State as on June 21.
According to him, the petitioner has come out a “false case” and is therefore “not maintainable”.
Mr Mitra who will resume his arguments on Monday, also accused Tata Motors of holding the State to ransom by keeping the Singur land in its control. “Since they have relocated the project, why did they hold on to the land?” he added.