In State of West Bengal v. M/s Santi Ceramics Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Calcutta High Court’s order directing restoration of 28 bighas of land in Singur to the respondent company, holding that the relief in Kedar Nath Yadav v. State of West Bengal (AIR 2016 SC 4156) applied only to vulnerable cultivators and not to industrial entities that had voluntarily accepted compensation.
The case arose from the 2006 acquisition of land in Hooghly for the TATA Motors “NANO Project.” The respondent company, which had purchased and converted the land for industrial use in 2001–02, objected to the acquisition but accepted full compensation for structures, without challenge. A decade later, following this Court’s judgment in Kedar Nath Yadav quashing the acquisition and ordering restoration to “landowners/cultivators,” the respondent sought parity and filed a writ petition for return of its land.
The Single Judge and Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court accepted the plea, reasoning that Kedar Nath Yadav extended equally to all landowners regardless of whether they were cultivators or corporations.
Before the Supreme Court, the State argued that the 2016 judgment in Kedar Nath Yadav was a limited equitable remedy crafted for dispossessed farmers who lacked legal and financial capacity to contest unlawful acquisition, and not a blanket restitution for all parties. It was also contended that the respondent’s acceptance of compensation and inaction for ten years constituted acquiescence and estoppel.
The Court agreed, holding that Kedar Nath Yadav’s relief was socio-legal in nature, directed at remedying structural injustice to “the weakest sections of society,” i.e., poor cultivators whose livelihood depended on the acquired land. The respondent, being a commercial entity with industrial infrastructure and financial capacity, could not claim benefit from a judgment conceived for agrarian protection.
Further, the Court held that quashing of acquisition in Kedar Nath Yadav operated “in personam” for those who had pursued the challenge, not “in rem” for all affected persons. The respondent’s decade-long silence and voluntary receipt of compensation extinguished any surviving right of restoration. The Court also noted the practical impossibility of restoring land after extensive reallocation to farmers following TATA’s exit.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed. The High Court’s orders were quashed, and the respondent’s writ petition was dismissed. The Court, however, permitted the respondent to remove remaining structures or have them auctioned, with the option to receive auction proceeds, directing completion of this process within four months.
Takeaway: Relief in Kedar Nath Yadav was a targeted social protection for dispossessed cultivators, not a universal restitution mechanism. Industrial entities that accepted compensation and remained silent cannot later claim parity or restoration on grounds of equity.
