Supreme Court Holds Restoration Remedy in Singur Case Is Confined to Vulnerable Cultivators; Corporate Claim Denied

A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi heard the appeal by the State of West Bengal challenging a Division Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court which had upheld a Single Judge's order directing restoration of 28 bighas of land, with structures, to M/s Santi Ceramics Pvt. Limited. The appeal arose from the quashing of land acquisition proceedings connected to the Singur project and whether the Court’s directions in Kedar Nath Yadav v. State of West Bengal extended to a commercial industrial lessee/owner who had accepted compensation in 2006.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgments dated 24.04.2017 and 11.10.2018, and dismissed the writ petition filed by Respondent No.1 insofar as it challenged acquisition of the Subject Land. The Bench held that the restoration remedy fashioned in Kedar Nath Yadav was directed at “the weakest sections of the society” — poor agricultural workers and cultivators who lacked means to challenge acquisition — and did not extend to industrial entities which had accepted compensation and had access to statutory remedies. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court further warned that “legal benefits flow from active pursuit of remedies, not passive opportunism.”

Background The subject land formed part of the Singur acquisition notified in 2006 for setting up a TATA Motors manufacturing plant. Respondent No.1 had purchased the land in 2001–02, converted it for industrial use in 2003, established a ceramics manufacturing unit and began operations. Acquisition notifications under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were issued in July–August 2006; an award was passed on 25.09.2006 and compensation of INR 14,54,75,744 (including INR 9,08,00,000 for structures) was deposited and possession taken. A Public Interest Litigation by farmers culminated in this Court’s 2016 judgment in Kedar Nath Yadav quashing acquisition proceedings on grounds including defective Section 5-A inquiries and non-application of mind, and directing restoration to original landowners/cultivators. Following that decision, Santi Ceramics sought restoration in November 2016 and obtained relief in the High Court; the State appealed.

The Supreme Court analysed whether the Kedar Nath Yadav remedy was of universal application or confined to disadvantaged cultivators. It held that the remedy was rooted in the vulnerability of poor agricultural workers and that where specific objections under Section 5-A were not pursued through litigation, parties who remained passive and accepted compensation could not later claim the benefit of the PIL-driven restoration. The Court found that Respondent No.1 had neither litigated promptly nor pursued statutory remedies, had accepted the award, and was therefore excluded from the protective framework. The appeal court also noted practical obstacles to restoration after extensive demarcation and redistribution undertaken post-Kedar Nath Yadav.

The Supreme Court ordered that Respondent No.1 may remove remaining structures, plant and machinery within three months in presence of District Magistrate officials, or seek public auction of such assets and receive auction proceeds (after costs), but shall not claim compensation from the State. The Land Acquisition Collector was directed to recalculate structure compensation after deducting salvage value; Appellants were to carry out fresh demarcation and resume possession. The assessment and related tasks were to be completed within four months. The Court’s interim stay order of 04.02.2019 on the High Court’s restoration direction was noted as having operated until the final decision. Pending applications stood disposed.

Case No.: 2025 INSC 1222 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 33701/2018) Case Title: The State of West Bengal and Others versus M/s Santi Ceramics Pvt. Limited and Another Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Harin P. Rawal, Senior Counsel; Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sridhar Potaraju, Senior Counsel