Minutes after the Calcutta High Court division bench Friday held the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011, as unconstitutional and void, the West Bengal Government Friday stated it is committed towards the interests of the farmers and that the next line of judicial action will be decided soon.
“We are committed towards the interest of farmers and share croppers. We are always with them and will remain with them. The unwilling farmers should not worry. After receiving the full version of the judgment we decide our next line of judicial procedures,” Industries Minister Partha Chatterjee said. Chatterjee, however, denied to comment on the judgment passed by the division bench of the Calcutta High Court.
However CM Mamata Bannerjee said via Facebook,” I have no comments to offer on Singur Verdict. Throughout my life, I have struggled for the cause of the farmers, working class, poor and under-privileged.Â
Our commitment to be with them will remain, whether I am in power or not. I will continue to fight for this cause.
Finally, the people’s choice in democracy will prevail“.
The Mamata Banerjee government suffered a serious jolt when the Calcutta High Court Friday struck down as unconstitutional and void the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011, which had scrapped the land lease given to Tata Motors by the earlier Left Front regime. The court favoured the Tata Motors’ appeal against a trial court order which upheld the act, and gave the West Bengal government two months to appeal before the Supreme Court.
The division bench of Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Justice Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri set aside the single bench judgment of the court, which had held the Singur Land Rehabilitation And Development Act, 2011, passed by the Mamata Banerjee government as constitutional and valid.
Automobile giant Tata Motors had moved the division bench against the Calcutta High Court’s Justice I.P. Mukerji’s Sep 28 judgment.
According to the division bench, sections of compensation in the Singur act were in conflict with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It also said the legislation had been enacted without obtaining the assent of the president.
The court has granted a two-month suspension on the order but barred the state from disbursing reclaimed land in the interim period.