Judges differ on whether land was acquired for public purpose

New Delhi, Aug 31 (PTI) The contentious issue of whetherthe land in Singur was acquired for "public purpose" or forTata Motors Ltd today saw two judges of a Supreme Court benchgiving divergent views, with one saying the acquisitionserved public purpose and the other replying in the negative. While Justice V Gopala Gowda observed that acquisition ofland "for and at the instance of the company" was sought to be"disguised" as acquisition of land for public purpose, JusticeArun Mishra said when the government wants to attractinvestment and create job opportunities, such acquisition waspermissible for public purpose. Referring to the Land Acquisition Act, Justice Gowda saidthat acquisition of land was sought to be disguised for publicpurpose to "circumvent" the compliance with the mandatoryprovisions of the Act and such action by the state governmentwas "grossly perverse and illegal". "In view of the aforesaid categorical findings recordedby me based on the materials on record, including cabinetmemo, minutes of meetings between representatives of the stategovernment and TML (Tata Motors Ltd) as well as thenotifications issued under sections 4 and 6 of the LA Act,1984, it is clear that the acquisition of lands in the instantcase is for the Company (TML)," Justice Gowda said. Disagreeing with his findings, Justice Mishra said as thestate had treated the acquisition to be for a public purposeand the entire money was paid by the West Bengal IndustrialDevelopment Corporation (WBIDC), "consequently by mere mentionthat the land was required for the small car project of TMLwould not make it an acquisition for a company under part VII(of the Act)." (More) PTI SJK ABA MNL RKSARC