Land Acquired for Singur ‘Nano’ Project to Be Restored Only to Farmers, Not Industrial Entities: SC

The Supreme Court on October 13, 2025 held that land acquired for Tata Motors’ “Nano” car project in Singur, West Bengal, will be restored only to farmers, and not to industrial entities that had accepted compensation and chosen not to pursue legal remedies. 

The Court said that extending restoration benefits to such entities would set an undesirable precedent.

A Division Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi allowed the appeal filed by West Bengal government challenging two Calcutta High Court judgments dated October 11, 2018 and April 24, 2017, which had directed the State to restore 28 bighas of land and all structures thereon to M/s Santi Ceramics Private Limited. The High Court had reasoned that the Supreme Court’s 2016 ruling in Kedar Nath Yadav v. State of West Bengal entitled all landowners, including business entities, to restitution of their acquired land.

The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that Kedar Nath Yadav was intended to protect vulnerable cultivators and farm workers who faced destitution as a result of the Singur land acquisition, not to extend benefits to well-resourced commercial enterprises. “Extraordinary judicial intervention is warranted when systemic barriers prevent certain classes from accessing ordinary remedies, not when parties possess adequate means to vindicate their rights,” the Bench said; “Relief conceived to prevent impoverishment among the disadvantaged cannot extend to commercial enterprises with financial capacity and institutional sophistication"

The Court noted that Santi Ceramics, unlike small farmers, operated a 60,000 square foot manufacturing facility employing over 100 workers since 2003 and had purchased and converted agricultural land for industrial use. It observed that the public interest litigation that led to Kedar Nath Yadav was specifically filed to safeguard cultivators whose livelihoods were endangered by large-scale acquisition. Extending such relief to industrial entities, the Court said, “would defeat the remedy’s foundational intent.”

In 2006, the State of West Bengal had acquired over 1,000 acres of land in Singur, Hooghly district, for setting up Tata Motors’ manufacturing plant for the “Nano” car. The project became controversial, sparking widespread farmer protests. After Tata Motors abandoned the project in 2010, the State regained possession of the land. The acquisition was later quashed by the Supreme Court in Kedar Nath Yadav, which directed restoration of land to the original cultivators within 12 weeks.

Santi Ceramics, which had not challenged the acquisition earlier, filed a representation in 2016 seeking restoration of its land and structures, claiming parity with the cultivators. It had accepted compensation of Rs. 14.54 crore in 2006 without protest and remained inactive for a decade. The Supreme Court noted that despite having financial resources and access to legal recourse, the company chose not to challenge the acquisition, unlike the affected farmers who promptly approached the High Court in 2006.

“Having chosen not to contest the acquisition through available statutory mechanisms, Respondent No.1 now seeks the same relief that was granted to disadvantaged communities through PIL, a classic free-rider problem that judicial remedies cannot encourage,” the Court observed. It added that “permitting industrial entities to claim restoration benefits from litigation they chose not to pursue would establish an undesirable precedent” and would “incentivize strategic inaction” by parties waiting for favourable outcomes secured by others.

The Bench clarified that quashing of land acquisition proceedings may operate either in personam (for those who challenged the acquisition) or in rem (for all affected parties). Relief in personam, it said, benefits only those who contested the acquisition before judicial forums. Since Kedar Nath Yadav involved personal grievances of cultivators and did not strike down the entire acquisition in rem, its benefits could not be extended to non-parties such as Santi Ceramics.

The Court also took note of the long passage of time since the acquisition. Nearly two decades had elapsed, and restoration work had already been undertaken to return land to cultivators; “Having accepted monetary settlement without challenge and remained passive during litigation spanning several years, it cannot now seek benefits from relief secured by others,” the Court said. It added that the “confluence of its commercial status, nature of the relief, and the practical impossibility of restoration due to intervening modifications collectively defeats this claim.”

Setting aside the High Court’s orders, the Supreme Court dismissed Santi Ceramics writ petition. However, it permitted the company to remove any remaining structures, plant, and machinery from the site within three months, in the presence of officials designated by the District Magistrate, Hooghly.

Alternatively, the company may request the State to auction its property and collect the sale proceeds after deducting auction expenses.

Case Title: The State of West Bengal and Others v. M/s Santi Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. and Another

Bench: Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi

Date of Judgment: October 13, 2025