SC says Singur land meant for ‘genuinely defenceless’, denies restoration to industrial units

The Supreme Court on Monday (October 13, 2025) ruled that the land acquired for the Tata Motors ‘Nano’ car project in West Bengal’s Singur will not be returned to industrial enterprises operating there before acquisition, observing that such enterprises have adequate means to “defend their rights”.

Bench Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi explained the scope of the court’s 2016 decision. Kedar Nath Yadav / State of West BengalThe company canceled the purchase of the Tata Motors factory and ordered the land to be returned to its original owners within 12 weeks.

The Bench said the 2016 ruling was aimed at protecting the “genuinely vulnerable” and that such protection could not be invoked by organizations with the financial resources to challenge the government’s action.

‘Systemic barriers’

Commenting on the 2016 decision, the Panel observed: “Extraordinary judicial intervention is required when systemic barriers prevent certain classes from accessing ordinary remedies, and not where parties have adequate means to assert their rights. Assistance designed to prevent the impoverishment of the disadvantaged cannot be applied to business entities with financial capacity and institutional sophistication.”

The top court was hearing a plea by the West Bengal government challenging the Calcutta High Court order, which directed the State to restore 28 large plots of land along with existing structures to Santi Ceramics Private Limited, which operated a ceramic electrical insulator manufacturing unit in Singur before it was acquired in 2006 for the Nano project.

Addressing structural vulnerability

Judge Kant, who wrote the decision, said that the “remedial framework” Kedar Nath Yadav It was designed for “poor agricultural workers” who were left destitute after their land was taken, and it sought to address this “structural fragility”. He stated that unlike marginal farmers, the company has been operating a 60,000 square meter production facility employing over 100 workers since 2003, and has been purchasing and converting agricultural land for industrial use.

“In light of the above analysis, we consider the following reasoning to be valid: Kedar Nath Yadav The case is not concluded in favor of defendant no. 1 (Santi Seramik). The court noted that the restoration solution was designed for disadvantaged farming communities and not as general compensation for all affected parties.

The Court also observed that allowing industries to claim restoration benefits from cases they choose not to pursue would “encourage strategic inaction” by allowing them to benefit from positive relief obtained by others. He said such an approach would encourage “passive opportunism” and encourage parties to remain “inactive” for years until a positive solution was provided by others.

‘Explicit consent’

The court also stated that the company had voluntarily accepted ₹14.54 crore as compensation, which constituted an “explicit consent” to the acquisition process.

“He accepted the full compensation amount without objection and remained passive while the growers pursued the case for years. Choosing not to challenge the purchase through existing legal mechanisms, the defendant now seeks the same relief afforded to disadvantaged communities through public interest litigation – a classic free-rider problem that judicial remedies cannot encourage,” the Bench said.

Accordingly, the court allowed Santi Ceramics to remove the remaining structures and machinery from the land within three months or, alternatively, to request the State to hold a public auction. It was stated that the company will be entitled to the auction revenues after deducting the expenses incurred in the process.