SC says Singur land meant for genuinely defenceless, denies restoration to industrial items

The Supreme Court on Monday (October 13, 2025) held that land acquired for Tata Motors ‘Nano’ automobile undertaking in Singur, West Bengal wouldn’t be restored to the economic entities that had been working there previous to its acquisition, observing that such enterprises possessed enough means to “vindicate their rights”.

A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi clarified the scope of the court docket’s 2016 ruling in Kedar Nath Yadav v. State of West Bengal, which had quashed the acquisition proceedings for the Tata Motors plant and directed that the land be returned to its authentic house owners inside 12 weeks.

The Bench mentioned the 2016 verdict was supposed to guard the “genuinely defenceless”, and that such safety couldn’t be invoked by entities with the monetary sources to contest governmental motion.

‘Systemic obstacles’

“Extraordinary judicial intervention is warranted when systemic obstacles stop sure lessons from accessing extraordinary treatments, not when events possess sufficient means to vindicate their rights. Relief conceived to stop impoverishment among the many deprived can’t prolong to business entities with monetary capability and institutional sophistication,” the Bench noticed whereas deciphering the 2016 judgment.

The prime court docket was listening to a plea by the West Bengal authorities difficult a Calcutta High Court order that had directed the State to revive 28 bighas of land, together with present buildings, to Santi Ceramics Private Limited, which had operated a ceramic electrical insulator manufacturing unit in Singur previous to the 2006 acquisition for the Nano undertaking.

Addressing structural vulnerability

Justice Kant, who authored the decision, mentioned the “remedial framework” in Kedar Nath Yadav was supposed for “poor agricultural staff” left destitute after the acquisition of their land and sought to deal with this “structural vulnerability.” He famous that, in contrast to marginal farmers, the corporate had been working a 60,000-square-foot manufacturing facility using over 100 staff since 2003, having bought and transformed agricultural land for industrial use.

“In view of the above evaluation, we maintain that the reasoning in Kedar Nath Yadav case doesn’t enure to the advantage of respondent No. 1 (Santi Ceramics). The restoration treatment was conceived for deprived farming communities, not as normal restitution for all affected events,” the court docket mentioned.

The Bench additional noticed that permitting industrial entities to assert restoration advantages from litigation they’d chosen to not pursue would “incentivise strategic inaction” by enabling them to capitalise on beneficial reduction obtained by others. Such an method, it mentioned, would foster “passive opportunism”, encouraging events to stay “dormant” for years till beneficial reduction was secured by others.

‘Clear acquiescence’

The court docket additionally famous that the corporate had voluntarily accepted ₹14.54 crore as compensation, which constituted a “clear acquiescence” to the acquisition course of.

“It accepted the complete compensation quantity with out protest and remained passive whereas cultivators pursued litigation for years. Having chosen to not contest the acquisition by way of accessible statutory mechanisms, the respondent now seeks the identical reduction that was granted to deprived communities by way of public curiosity litigation — a basic free-rider downside that judicial treatments can’t encourage,” the Bench noticed.

Accordingly, the court docket permitted Santi Ceramics to take away any remaining buildings and equipment from the land inside three months, or alternatively, to request the State to conduct a public public sale. The firm, it mentioned, can be entitled to the public sale proceeds after deducting the bills incurred within the course of.