Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-012653-012653 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 46354/2018 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority on scope of restoration remedies in land acquisition disputes |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms the procedural framework of the 2016 restoration remedy, but limits its beneficiaries |
| Type of Law | Land Acquisition Act, 1894 |
| Questions of Law | Whether the restoration direction issued in the 2016 quashing judgment extends to an industrial landowner who did not participate in the original litigation and accepted compensation without challenge. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Respondent No.1 purchased agricultural land in 2001–02, converted it for industrial use in 2003 and began operations. The State issued Section 4 notifications in July 2006; Respondent No.1 filed and lost Section 5-A objections, accepted full compensation in September 2006, and did not pursue further challenge until after the 2016 quashing judgment. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in India |
| Persuasive For | High Courts deciding restoration claims by commercial entities in acquisition matters |
| Distinguishes | The 2016 restoration judgment by limiting its benefit to vulnerable cultivators and excluding industrial landowners who did not litigate |
| Follows | Abhey Ram v. Union of India; Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban; Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Restoration relief under the 2016 quashing judgment is restricted to disadvantaged agricultural communities and does not extend to industrial entities with resources.
- Parties who accept full compensation and remain passive during litigation are estopped from seeking belated restoration.
- Quashing orders on procedural grounds under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act operate in personam—only parties who litigated benefit.
- PIL‐based challenges represent vulnerable cultivators collectively; industrial claimants cannot free-ride on that jurisdictional vehicle.
- Long delay (a decade of inaction) and subsequent land modifications defeat practical restoration claims.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Scope of 2016 remedy
- The prior quashing judgment was designed to protect poor agricultural workers who lacked means to challenge acquisition.
- Industrial landowners with financial capacity fall outside that protective intent.
- In personam vs in rem
- Procedural defects in Section 5-A inquiry give rise to in personam relief, benefiting only objectors who pursued litigation.
- In rem relief requires striking down root defects applicable to all; not present here.
- Estoppel and delay
- Respondent No.1 accepted INR 14.54 crore compensation in 2006 without protest and did not challenge until 2016; its inaction bars restoration.
- PIL framework
- The 2016 quashing arose from a PIL representing vulnerable cultivators; corporate entities cannot piggyback on that representative remedy.
- Practical impossibility
- Nearly two decades, land demarcation and alterations for farmer restoration make returning structures commercially unviable.
Arguments by the Parties
Appellants (State of West Bengal):
- The 2016 restoration remedy was tailored for poor agricultural communities, not for industrial enterprises.
- Respondent No.1 accepted full compensation, evidencing acquiescence; principle of estoppel applies.
- Non-participation in original litigation precludes benefit of quashing orders on procedural grounds.
Respondent No.1 (Industrial landowner):
- The 2016 judgment used “landowners/cultivators” without distinguishing agricultural from commercial owners.
- Detailed Section 5-A objections and specifics of structural compensation show entitlement.
- Denial of restoration would negate uniform treatment of all owners affected by the acquisition.
Factual Background
Respondent No.1 acquired 28 bighas of agricultural land in 2001–02, obtained industrial‐use conversion in 2003, and began manufacturing. In July 2006, the State issued Section 4 notifications for the Singur Project; Respondent No.1’s Section 5-A objections were rejected. An award of INR 14.54 crore (land and structures) was deposited in September 2006. Respondent No.1 did not litigate until after the Supreme Court’s 2016 quashing judgment for cultivators, then sought restoration of land and structures.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 4, 5-A, 6, 11 (Land Acquisition Act, 1894)
- Section 5-A requires effective inquiry into objections—failure vitiates acquisition for objectors who litigate.
- Section 6 declaration and award become final if objections are neither pursued nor challenged.
- In personam relief applies where defects relate to individual objections; non-objecting parties cannot claim quashing.
- PIL jurisdiction extends relief to vulnerable groups collectively represented; not to those with means to litigate individually.
Procedural Innovations
- Clarification of in personam vs in rem operation of quashing orders in land acquisition.
- Emphasis on estoppel through acceptance of compensation and prolonged inaction.
- Restriction on PIL‐driven relief to those within the representative class of vulnerable cultivators.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – the decision affirms and refines established procedural jurisprudence under the Land Acquisition Act.