Case: Kedar Nath Yadav Vs. State Of West Bengal

V. Gopala Gowda, J. 1. Delay condoned in SLP (C) CC No. 13645 of 2008. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions. 2. The present appeals arise out of the impugned final common judgment and order dated 18.01.2008 in W.P. No. 23836 (W) of 2006 and connected petitions, passed by the High Court of Calcutta, wherein the Writ Petitions filed challenging the proceedings of the acquisition of land to an extent of about 1000 acres within the mouzas Gopalnagar, Singherberi, Beraberi, Khaserberi and Bajemelia, P.S. Singur, District Hooghly were dismissed. 3. The relevant facts which are required for us to appreciate the rival legal contentions advanced on behalf of the parties are stated in brief as hereunder: The State of West Bengal formulated an industrial policy to establish automobile industries in the State to cater to the needs of the people and to solve the problem of unemployment in the State. In pursuance of the same, the respondent, Tata Motors Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "TML"), entered into discussions with the State Government of West Bengal regarding the infrastructural needs of the project. In a letter dated 19.01.2006 addressed to then Principal Secretary of the Commerce and Industries Department of the Government of West Bengal, TML stated that a team had visited the State and met representatives of the Government. It also thanke d the Government for the openness with which the discussions were held and the assurance of its full support on the project, and summarized its requirements for the same. The relevant portion of the proposal is extracted hereunder: CHART 4. The then Principal Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Commerce & Industries Department, sent the letter dated 24.01.2006, annexing the proposal which TML had sent, to the then Principal Secretary Land and Land Reforms Department, Shri Sukumar Das to communicate his views to the Commerce and Industries Department. A letter was also sent on the same day to the then Principal Secretary, Finance Department seeking his view on the matter. Further, the `Record Note of Discussion held between TML and a team from the Government of West Bengal and West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "WBIDC") produced on record, shows that a team from TML met representatives of the Government of West Bengal and WBIDC on 08.03.2006 in Kolkata and on 17.03.2006 in Mumbai. The relevant portion of the record note reads as under: "TML has shown interest in setting up a "Special Category Project" in West Bengal for manufacture of its new car for a volume of 2, 50,000 per year on maturity. The West Bengal Government is also keen to attract a "Special Category Project" in line with their Industrial Policy Document." The record note also states that the project was looking at a direct investment worth Rs. 650 crores in the plant and machinery and the IT infrastructure by TML, a direct investment by the company in factory building including utilities such as roads, water line, sewage line, power lines drainage and effluent treatment plants etc. to the tune of Rs. 176 crores, a direct investment by TML in a township of approximately 2000 dwelling units of an average area of 1000/- sq. ft. per dwelling unit with complete municipal facilities such as roads, power line, water line, drainage, parks and other municipal facilities at Rs. 150 crores. The record note further mentions an indirect investment by vendors in the vendor park in plant and machinery valued at Rs. 200 crores and a further indirect investment by vendors in factory building including facilities such as roads, power line, water line, drainage, sewage and other municipal facilities amounting to Rs. 90 crores. The employment potential of this project was assessed at 1,800 employees in direct employment by TML and a further 4,700 employees through vendors and service providers. The estimated project requirement of land, is extracted as under: "LandTML factory - 400 acresVendor park - 200 acresTownship - 100 acres" 5. At this stage, it is also important to consider the incentive package offered by the State Government to TML. The relevant portion is extracted as under: " The West Bengal government has offered to TML an incentive package equal to some of the best being offered in some States.The two teams have worked out the following package which may vary downwards or upwards based on the volumes of sales in West Bengal:1. The State Government will develop the land admeasuring approx. 600 acres and lease it to TML for its own factories as well as for sub-leasing to the vendors for vendor park needed for the project. The entire land will be leased to TML for 30 years at an annual lease rental of Rs. 10 lakhs. This lease can be renewed for further blocks of 30 years at a negotiated lease rental at the option of TML. On each renewal, the lease rental would not be increased by more than 5 times of the lease rental existing on the date of renewal.2. The State Government would develop the land and construct the factory building including the facilities such as roads, power line, water line, drainage, sewage, effluent treatment plant, other utilities e.g. Air compressors, standby generators and LPG storage yard, etc. and lease it to the TML at an annual lease rental of Rs. 90 lakhs per annum for 30 years renewable at the option of TML for further blocks of 30 years. At each renewal the lease rental will be negotiated. However, the increase in rental will not be more than 500% at any renewal compared to the rental existing on the date of renewal.3. The State Government will construct an integrated township of approximately 2000 dwelling units of an average area of 1000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit, including the facilities such as roads, power line, water line, drainage, sewage, effluent treatment plants, parks, schools, training institutes, shopping complex, etc. and lease it to TML on lease for 30 years on annual lease rental of Rs. 25 lakhs. This lease can be renewed in future at the option of TML for further blocks of 30 years and the increase in lease rental at each renewal would not be more than 5 times the lease rental existing on the date of renewal.The township is estimated to cost Rs. 150 crores." 6. The Principal Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department of the Government of West Bengal sent a letter dated 23.03.2006 to the Deputy General Manager, Government Affairs and Collaborations of TML with reference to the letter dated 19.01.2006 and the record notes of the subsequent discussions between the Government of West Bengal and TML on the subject signed on 17.03.2006, approving the proposal as under: "....from TML to set up a plant on 600 acres of land near Kharagpur to manufacture a new car addressing the lower end of the market, with annual capacity of 2,50,000 units on maturity......the targeted date of commencement of commercial production being the year 2008." By way of letter dated 29.03.2006, the then Chief Minister of West Bengal wrote to the then Chairman of TML regarding the project. There was some discussion regarding the location of the plant, the relevant portion of which is extracted from the file as under: "During our discussion today, you had mentioned the allocation close to Kolkata may be considered. As you are undoubtedly aware, land around Kolkata is difficult to come by and the cost of such land is also very high. Also, land has to be suitable for industry. We had to keep these aspects in view while selecting a location for the TML plant.We had at first proposed location of this project at Guptamoni, which is about 25km west of Kharagpur towards Jamshedpur on National Highway 6. Thereafter, based on the suggestion given by Shri Ravi Kant during his meeting with Shri Nirupam Sen, we have now selected a site right next to Kharagpur town, on National Highway 6......The distance to Kharagur from Kolkata can now be covered in approximately 90 minutes. Haldia Port is at a distance of 100 kms from this location, while Jamshedpur is about 2 hours away.......We now await a visit from Shri Ravi Kant for his approval of the proposed location.I can assure you that this is one of the best locations in West Bengal for locating your plant. I look forward to the final approval from the Board of Directors of TML so that we can immediately start taking all the necessary steps."(emphasis laid by this Court) >7. TML subsequently informed the representatives of the State Government of West Bengal that they would like to be shown the site at Singur again for their technical team to reconfirm the suitability of the site. Consequently the said site was again shown to the representatives of TML on 05.05.2006. They confirmed that this is the site which would be ideally suited for the proposed small car project. The total land area was 1053 acres for the small car project and 200 acres in Telipukur mouza for the township. The Draft Note for Cabinet Memo mentions the mouzas for which the WBIDC had proposed for acquisition of land as well.The Principal Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department drafted the Cabinet Memo No. 2995/PrS/C&I dated 30.05.2006 titled as under: "Proposal for acquisition of land measuring 1053 acres for small car project of Tata Motors at Singur, Hooghly and 200 acres in Telipukur in Singur P.S. District-Hoogly for Housing and related amenities to be developed by Tata Housing Development Co. Ltd." The Cabinet Memo mentions the investment in the project and the shift in the proposed site as well. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder: "....The Tata Motors Co. Ltd. (TML) have decided to set up their Small Car Project in West Bengal. For this purpose for the last several months, they have scouted for various sites around Kolkata and have finally chosen a site in Singur P.S. in the Hooghly district due to its locational advantage. The site chosen will also cater to the requirement of the vendors of the Company who will be located in the Vendors Park within the Tata Motors Factory site. The total investment including that by vendors is expected to be about Rs. 1000 crores. The plant will generate substantial direct and indirect employment, and will also create a number of ancillary units, which also generate local employment.1. The State Government had initially proposed location of this plant in Kharagpur. TML have informed that this will be flagship project, providing very high visibility to West Bengal as an investment destination. They also need very good connectivity and proximity to airport, as well as quality urban and physical infrastructure.Taking all these factors into account, TML, after seeing a number of sites in Howrah, Hooghly, Paschim Medinipur and Purba Medinipur, finally selected a site in Singur Block.2. West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (WBIDC) now proposes to acquired 1053 acres of land for the said Small Car Project of Tata Motors Co. Ltd. in following mouzas under Singur P.S. in Hooghly district:MouzaJ.L. NoGopal Nagar13Singherberi10Beraberi05Khaserberi11Bajemelia123. The Tata Housing Company Ltd. has proposed to set up housing and related infrastructure at Telipukur under Singur P.S. in Hooghly district comprising of 200 acres to cater to the Housing and Social infrastructure requirements of the proposed Small Car Project of the Tata Motors Co. Ltd. at Singur, which is not far away from the proposed project site. WBIDC, therefore, proposes to acquire 200 acres of land at Telipukur, Singur P.S. in Hooghly district for the purpose.4.The identification of lands involved in this acquisition proposal has been made in such a manner that existing settlements/ habitations are avoided. Where isolated homesteads are involved, suitable rehabilitation in the form of providing land/house will be taken up.Detailed land survey and plot identification will be carried out after Cabinet accords approval to the proposal.Efforts will also be made to avoid/minimize intensively cropped lands.This has the approval of the Chief Minister.Cabinet may kindly approve the proposed acquisition of 1253 (1053+200) acres of land as proposed at para 3 and 4 above."(emphasis laid by this Court) >8. Pursuant to the approval of the said decision of the Cabinet by the Chief Minister dated 05.06.2006, the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the "L.A. Act") was published in the Calcutta Gazette Extraordinary dated 21.07.2006, the relevant portion of which reads as under: "Whereas, it appears to the Governor that land as mentioned in schedule below is likely to be needed to be taken by Government/Government Undertaking/Development Authorities, at the public expense for a public purpose, viz., employment generation and socio economic development of the area by setting up TATA Small Car Project in the Mouza Beraberi, jurisdiction list No. 5, P.S. Singur, District Hooghly; it is hereby notified that for the above purpose an area of land comprising RS/LR plots as detailed below and measuring more or less, 72.03 acres, as specified below within the aforesaid Mouza......"(emphasis laid by this Court) />A perusal of the said notification makes it clear that it does not specifically mention that the land in question is being acquired in favour of WBIDC. It merely states that the land in question might be needed for Government / Government Undertaking/Development Authorities. Proposal numbers 3 and 4 of Cabinet Memo, referred to supra, approved by the Chief Minister make it clear that acquisition of land comprising of 1053 acres is needed for the Small Car Project of TML and 200 acres of land is needed to cater to the housing and social infrastructure needs of the project.9. Section 4 of the L.A. Act reads as under: " (1) Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government the land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose or for a company, a notification to that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette [and in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language], and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the notification." 10. The Act, under the provision of Section 5-A further provides that after the notification, the objections, if any, may be submitted in writing to the Collector. The Collector, after the receipt of such objections, needs to give an opportunity of being heard to the person so objecting. The Collector is then required to conduct an inquiry and submit a report in that respect to the State Government for its consideration. In the instant case, five objection petitions were received from the land owners/cultivators within 30 days after publication of notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act. One objector applied for exemption of his land from acquisition as he intended to set up a petrol pump from it. Another applied for exemption of the land from acquisition on the ground that they are running a number of agro-based industries like cold storage, factory and fisheries covering a large area of land providing employment to a considerable number of persons. The Land Acquisition Collector submitted the report dated 31.08.2006 to the State Government. In the report, the Land Acquisition Collector concluded that WBIDC intends to acquire the land for generating employment and for socio-economic development of the area by setting up a factory for the `Small Car Project of TML at Singur. Being such a large scale project, it was bound to create immense job opportunities for the local youth, both directly and indirectly. The Land Acquisition Collector, thus, concluded that the acquisition of the land in question was indeed for public purpose. As far as certain other objectors were concerned, the Land Acquisition Collector observed that the objectors did not appear before him to justify their objections to the proposed acquisition of lands, despite the factum of hearing before the Land Acquisition Collector being widely advertised, including by way of announcement in two local daily newspapers. The Land Acquisition Collector concluded that it appears that the objectors are no more interested to proceed further in the proceedings with their objections. Therefore, he concluded that those objections may be ignored in the greater interest of the public and the State and submitted his reports to the State Government dated 29.08.2006. Pursuant to the report of the Land Acquisition Collector, the State Government issued notification under Section 6 of the L.A. Act published in the official gazette dated 30.08.2006, the relevant portion of which reads as under: "Whereas the appropriate Government is satisfied, after considering the report sent by the Collector u/s 5-A (2), the land mentioned in the schedule given below is needed by the State Government/ Government Undertaking/ Development Authorities, at the public expense for a public purpose, viz., employment generation and socio economic development of the area by setting up of TATA Small Car Project........." 11. The Land Acquisition Collector subsequently made award of compensation on 25.09.2006. WBIDC then took possession of the land in question, the extent of which was 997 acres. By its letter dated 20.12.2006, WBIDC asked TML to take "permissive possession of 950 acres of land pending finalization of the lease deed and lease terms and conditions." The formal lease deed was executed on 15.03.2007. Subsequently, the acquisition proceedings were challenged before the High Court of Calcutta by way of Writ Petitions. By common judgment and order dated 18.01.2008, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, dismissed the Writ Petitions, and upheld the acquisition of land, holding the same to be in the interest of the public and for public purpose. The same was challenged by way of Special Leave Petition before this Court being SLP (Civil) No. 8463 of 2008 and other connected SLPs as clearly mentioned in the cause title of this judgment.12. Even as the above said cases were pending before this Court, the State Government of West Bengal and TML went ahead with the development of the land and setting up of the factory for the `Small Car Project. It was, however, at around that time that the local population started protesting against the acquisition of the land and setting up of the factory. Numerous incidents of blockade, protests and violence were reported in the print and electronic media. By letter dated 10.11.2008 addressed to the Director General of Police, West Bengal, TML informed that it is suspending operations as the circumstances were no longer conducive for them to work in a peaceful manner. TML started removing the equipments, machines and other materials from the site from 10.11.2008 onwards. The said plant was then relocated to the State of Gujarat. The new Government of West Bengal enacted a legislation on 20.06.2011 titled the `Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the "Singur Act, 2011") for taking over the land covered by the lease granted in favour of TML. TML challenged the constitutional validity of the said Act by way of Writ Petition before a single Judge of the Calcutta High Court. By judgment and order dated 28.09.2011 the learned single Judge upheld the validity of the said Act. The correctness of the said decision was challenged by way of appeals before a Division Bench of the High Court. By its common judgment and order dated 22.06.2012, the Division Bench allowed the appeals and struck down Sections 2, 4(3), 5 and 6 of the Singur Act, 2011 as unconstitutional as they were in direct conflict with the provisions of the L.A. Act and hence, repugnant to the said Act. It was further held that the entire Singur Act, 2011 itself is void and unconstitutional as the same had not received assent from the President of India. Hence, the present appeals.13. By way of order dated 11.05.2016, this Court has de-tagged the appeals arising out of SLP (C) No. 23843 of 2012, SLP (C) No. 24269 of 2012 and SLP (C) No. 1881-1911 of 2013, as they deal with the constitutional validity of the Singur Act, 2011. The scope of the present appeals is only restricted to deciding the validity of the acquisition of land and the compensation awarded thereafter in favour of the land losers. 14. Mr. Colin Gonsalves, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in the appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 12724 of 2008 submits that admittedly, TML approached WBIDC to develop a small car manufacturing unit within the State of West Bengal. The learned senior counsel further contends that a perusal of the documents on record, being the Cabinet Memo as well as the letters exchanged between TML and the West Bengal State Government would clearly show that the site of the project was chosen jointly by the State Government and TML as the best possible site for the project which was to be implemented by establishing the factory in consultation with each other. The land in question was acquired by WBIDC at the behest of TML. The learned senior counsel contends that such an acquisition would be hit by the provisions of Part VII of the L.A. Act, the heading of which is "Acquisition of land for companies". It is submitted that the provisions of the said part were not followed in the instant case, though the same are mandatory in nature. The learned senior counsel draws our attention to Section 39 of the L.A. Act which reads as under: "39. Previous consent of appropriate Government and execution of agreement necessary:- The provisions of section 6 to 37 (both inclusive) shall not be put in force in order to acquire land for any Company, unless with the previous consent of the appropriate Government, nor unless the Company shall have executed the agreement hereinafter mentioned" It is contended that the Agreement in terms of Section 39 of the L.A. Act has not been published in the official gazette. 15. The learned senior counsel places reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Devender Pal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2008) 1 SCC 728 wherein this Court has held as under: "16. When a request is made by any wing of the State or a Government company for acquisition of land for a public purpose, different procedures are adopted. Where, however, an application is filed for acquisition of land at the instance of a "company", the procedures to be adopted therefore are laid down in Part VII of the Act. Although it may not be decisive but the conduct of the State as to how it intended to deal with such a requisition, is a relevant factor. The action of the State provides for an important condition to consider as to whether the purpose where for a company requests it for acquisition of land is a public purpose and/or which could be made at public expenses either as a whole or in part, evidently provisions laid down in Part II shall be resorted to. On the other hand, if the State forms an opinion that the acquisition of land at the instance of the company may not be for public purpose or, therefore the expenses to be incurred therefore either in whole or in part shall not be borne by the State, the procedures laid down in Part VII thereof have to be resorted to. The procedures laid down under Part VII of the Act are exhaustive. Rules have been framed prescribing the mode and manner in which the State vis-a-vis the company should proceed. It provides for previous consent of the Appropriate Government, execution of the agreement, previous inquiry before a consent is accorded, publication of the agreement, restriction on transfer, etc. It also provides for statutory injunction that no land shall be acquired except for the purpose contained in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) Section 40 of the Act for a private company which is not a Government company. For the purpose of Section 44B of the Act, no distinction is made between a private company and a public limited company." The learned senior counsel contends that the abovementioned case makes it clear that land can be acquired either for a company, or for a public purpose, but not for both. 16. The learned senior counsel further places reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Amarnath Ashram v. Governor of U.P. & Ors., (1998) 1 SCC 591 wherein this Court held as under: "Admittedly, in the present case the entire cost of acquisition is to be borne by the appellant society and, therefore, it is an acquisition for a company and not for a public purpose. That is also borne out by the notification issued Under Section 6 of the Act which states "that the land mentioned in the schedule below is needed for the construction of play-ground for students of Amar Nath Vidya Ashram (public school). Mathura in district Mathura by the Amar Nath Ashram Trust, Mathura". Therefore, simply because in the notification issued Under Section 4 of the Act it was stated that the land was needed for a public purpose, namely, for a play- ground for students of Amar Nath Vidya Ashram (public school), Mathura, it cannot be said that the acquisition is for a public purpose and not under Chapter VII for the appellant-society in view of subsequent events and the declaration made Under Section 6. The learned counsel for the State also relied upon the decision of this Court in Srinivasa Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. v. Madam Gurumurthy Sastry, , wherein this Court has held that though there is "no provision in the Act to say that when a land is required for a company, it may also be for a public purpose. However, even the acquisition for a company, unless utilisation of the land so acquired is integrally connected with public use, resort to the compulsory acquisition under Chapter VII cannot be had". It was submitted on the basis of this observation that even in case of an acquisition for a company an element of public purpose has to be there and if for that reason it was believed by the Government that it was necessary for it to make substantial contribution from public revenue so as to avoid the charge of colourable exercise of powers, the decision of the Government to withdraw from the acquisition cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. The aforesaid observation was made by this Court in the context of requirement of Section 40 of the Act and they cannot be construed to mean that no land cannot be acquired by the State Government without making substantial contribution towards the cost of acquisition. We cannot read something more in the said observation than what they were intended to convey. The provisions of part VII and particularly the provisions regarding payment of the entire costs of the acquisition would otherwise become redundant." Further reliance has been placed by him on the case of R.L. Arora, AIR 1962 SC 764 wherein this Court held as under: "Therefore, though the words "public purpose" in Sections 4 and 6 have the same meaning, they have to be read in the restricted sense in accordance with s. 40 when the acquisition is for a company under s. 6. In one case, the notification under s. 6 will say that the acquisition is for a public purpose, in the other case the notification will say that it is for a company. The proviso to s. 6(1) shows that where the acquisition is for a public purpose, the compensation has to be paid wholly or partly out of public revenues or some fund controlled or managed by a local authority. Where however the acquisition is either for a company, the compensation would be paid wholly by the company. Though therefore this distinction is there where the acquisition is either for a public purpose or for a company, there is not a complete dichotomy between acquisitions for the two purposes and it cannot be maintained that where the acquisition is primarily for a company it must always be preceded by action under Part VII and compensation must always be paid wholly by the company. A third class of cases is possible where the acquisition may be primarily for a company but it may also be at the same time for a public purpose and the whole or part of compensation may be paid out of public revenues or some fund controlled or managed by a local authority. In such a case though the acquisition may look as if it is primarily for a company it will be covered by that part of s. 6 which lays down that acquisition may be made for a public purpose if the whole or part of the compensation is to be paid out of the public revenues or some fund controlled or managed by a local authority." The learned senior counsel contends that the mere mention of public purpose in the notifications, does not in fact make the acquisition one for a public purpose, when the acquisition of lands was made in favour of TML. To make the acquisition one for public purpose, it must be directly useful to the public, and the benefit must not be merely incidental in nature. The learned senior counsel places reliance on the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 to the L.A. Act, which states thus: "With the enormous expansion of the States role in promoting public welfare and economic development since independence, acquisition of land for public purposes, industrialisation, building of institutions, etc., has become far more numerous than ever before. While this is inevitable, promotion of public purpose has to be balanced with the rights of the individual whose land is acquired, thereby often depriving him of his means of livelihood. Again, acquisition of land for private enterprises ought not to be placed on the same footing as acquisition for the State or for an enterprise under it. The individual and institutions who are unavoidably to be deprived of their property rights in land need to be adequately compensated for the loss keeping in view the sacrifice they have to make for the larger interest of the community. The pendency of acquisition proceedings for long periods often causes hardship to the affected parties and renders unrealistic the scale of compensation offered to them.2. It is necessary, therefore, to restructure the legislative framework for acquisition of land so that it is more adequately informed by this objective of serving the interests of community in harmony with the rights of the individual. Keeping the above objects in view and considering the recommendations of the Law Commission, the Land Acquisition Review Committee as well as the State Governments, institutions and individuals, proposals for amendment to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, were formulated and a Bill for this purpose was introduced in the Lok Sabha on the 30th April, 1982. The same has not been passed by either House of Parliament. Since the introduction of the Bill, various other proposals for amendment of the Act have been received and they have also been considered in consultation with State Governments and other agencies. It is now proposed to include all these proposals in a fresh Bill after withdrawing the pending Bill. The main proposals for amendment are as follows:-i) The definition of public purpose as contained in the Act is proposed to be amended so as to include a longer illustrative list retaining, at the same time, the inclusive character of the definition.(ii) Acquisition of land for non- Government companies under the Act will hence forth be made in pursuance of Part VII of the Act in all cases."(emphasis laid by this Court) 17. Mr. Kalyan Banerjee, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the some of the appellants, who are cultivators, in the appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 11830 of 2008 and SLP (C) No. 11783 of 2008 contends that the acquisition of lands in the instant case was not for a public purpose, but for a company, (TML) under the guise of public purpose. The lands were acquired by WBIDC at the specific instance of TML, as becomes clear from a perusal of the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the L.A. Act, the relevant portions of which have been extracted supra. 18. The learned senior counsel further draws our attention to Section 6 of the L.A. Act, which reads as under: "6. Declaration that land is required for a public purpose.- (1) Subject to the provision of Part VII of this Act, [appropriate Government] is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made under section 5A, sub-section (2)], that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, or for a Company, a declaration shall be made to that effect under the signature of a Secretary to such Government or of some officer duly authorized to certify its orders [and different declarations may be made from time to time in respect of different parcels of any land covered by the same notification under section 4, sub-section (I) irrespective of whether one report or different reports has or have been made (wherever required) under section 5A, sub-section (2)];...............Provided further that no such declaration shall be made unless the compensation to be awarded for such property is to be paid by a Company, wholly or partly out of public revenues or some fund controlled or managed by a local authority.Explanation 2.- Where the compensation to be awarded for such property is to be paid out of the funds of a corporation owned or controlled by the State, such compensation shall be deemed to be compensation paid out of public revenues." The learned senior counsel contends that as per Section 6 of the L.A. Act, the deposit of money is the deposit of public revenue is to be examined in the light of Explanation-2. Explanation-2 to Section 6, which has been added by way of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 68 of 1984 provides that no declaration under Section 6 shall be made unless the compensation to be awarded for the lands in question is paid by a Company, wholly or partly out of public revenues or some fund controlled or managed by a local authority. The learned senior counsel further contends that WBIDC cannot be said to be `local authority. A local authority must have representative character. This means that it must comprise of elected members and must be under the control of the Government with the control and management of a municipal or local fund. This aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court in a number of cases wherein it was held that a statutory corporation or a company formed by a State Government or Central Government cannot be construed as a local authority. The learned senior counsel places reliance on the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of Valjibhai Muljibhai Soneji v. State of Bombay & Ors, AIR 1963 SC 1890 wherein on the question of whether or not the State Road Transport Corporation was a local authority for the purpose of the L.A. Act, it was held as under: "The expression "local authority" is not defined in the Land Acquisition Act but is defined in s. 3(31) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, as follows:"local authority shall mean a municipal committee, district board, body of port commissioners or other authority legally entitled to, or entrusted by the Government with, the control or management of a municipal or local fund :"The definitions given in the General Clauses Act, 1897, govern all Central Acts and Regulations made after the commencement of the Act. No doubt, this Act was enacted later in point of time than the Land Acquisition Act; but this Act was a consolidating and amending Act and a definition given therein of the expression "local authority" is the same as that contained in the earlier Acts of 1868 and 1887. The definition given in s. 3(31) will, therefore, hold good for construing the expression "local authority" occurring in the Land Acquisition Act. We have already quoted the definition. It will be clear from the definition that unless it is shown that the State Transport Corporation is an authority and is legally entitled to or entrusted by the Government with control or management of a local fund it cannot be regarded as a local authority. No material has been placed before us from which it could be deduced that the funds of the Corporation can be regarded as local funds." The learned senior counsel further places reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Calcutta State Road Transport Corporation v. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal, (1996) 8 SCC 758 wherein it was held as under: "The expression "local authority" is not defined in the Income Tax Act. Its definition is, however, contained in the General Clauses Act in Clause (31) of Section 3. It reads :Local authority shall mean a municipal committee, district board, body of port commissioners or other authority legally entitled to, or entrusted by the Government with, the control or management of a municipal or local fund.The contention of Sri Ray is that inasmuch as the assessee is entrusted by the Government with the control or management of a "local fund", it is a local authority within the meaning of the said definition. Sri Ray placed strong reliance upon the judgement of this Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Shri R.C. Jain and Ors. The question in the said decision was whether the Delhi Development Authority (D.D.A.) constituted under the Delhi Development Act, 1957 is a "local authority". The question had arisen under the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act. Chinnappa Reddy, J., speaking for the Bench, laid down the following test for determining whether a particular body is a "local authority" within the meaning of Section 3(31) of the General Clauses Act: "An authority, in order to be a local authority, must be of like nature and character as a Municipal Committee, District Board or Body of Port Commissioners, possessing, therefore, many, if not all, of the distinctive attributes and characteristics of a Municipal Committee, District Board or Body of Port Commissioners, but possessing one essential feature, viz., that it is legally entitled to or entrusted by the government with, the control and management of a municipal or local fund." The learned Judge elaborated the said test saying that to be characterised as a "local authority", the authority must have separate legal existence as a corporate body, it must not be a mere government agency but must be legally independent entity, it must function in a defined area and must ordinarily, wholly or partly, directly or indirectly, be elected by the inhabitants of the area. It must also enjoy a certain degree of autonomy either complete or partial, must be entrusted by statute with such government functions and duties as are usually entrusted to Municipal Bodies such as those connected with providing amenities to the inhabitants of the locality like health and education, water and sewerage, town planning and development, roads, markets, transportation, social welfare services etc. Finally it was observed-such body must have the power to raise funds for furtherance of its activities and fulfillment of its objects by levying taxes, rates, charges or fees."(emphasis laid by this Court) The learned senior counsel further places reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of S. Sundaram Pillai & Ors. v. R. Pattabiraman & Ors., (1985) 1 SCC 591 to contend that explanation cannot extend the scope of the proviso. It was held by this Court as under: "42. In Hiralal Rattanlal etc. v. State of U.P. and Anr. etc. this Court made the following observations:Ordinarily, a proviso to a section is intended to take out a part of the main section for special treatment. It is not expected to enlarge the scope of the main section. But cases have arisen in which this Court has held that despite the fact that a provision is called proviso, it is really a separate provision and the so-called proviso has substantially altered the main section.43. We need not multiply authorities after authorities on this point because the legal position seems to be clearly and manifestly well established. To sum up, a proviso may serve four different purposes:1) qualifying or excepting certain provisions from the main enactment;2) it may entirely change the very concept of the intendment of the enactment by insisting on certain mandatory conditions to be fulfilled in order to make the enactment workable;3) it may be so embedded in the Act itself as to become an integral part of the enactment and thus acquire the tenor and colour of the substantive enactment itself; and4) it may be used merely to act as an optional addenda to the enactment with the sole object of explaining the real intendment of the statutory provision.44. These seem to be by and large the main purport and parameters of a proviso." 19. The learned senior counsel contends that explanation is only relatable to the main provision and not the proviso. The learned senior counsel thus, reiterates that even where the acquisition of land is for a corporation, provisions of Part VII of the L.A. Act must be complied with. 20. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant - Association of Democratic Rights in the appeal arising out of SLP (c) No. CC 13645 of 2008 submits that acquisition for a public purpose is made under Part II of the L.A. Act, whereas acquisition for a company is made under Part VII of the L.A. Act. The procedure under Part VII of the L.A. Act is mandatory and strict compliance of the same is required for the state to exercise its power of eminent domain to acquire the lands in favour of a Company. It is submitted that in the instant case, the lands were acquired for a particular company, TML, at the instance of the said company and the exact location and site of the land was also identified by the said company. Even the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the L.A. Act clearly state that the land was being acquired for the Tata Motors `Small Car Project. 21. The learned counsel draws our attention to Rule 4 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 framed under Section 55 of the L.A. Act of which reads as under: "Appropriate Government to be satisfied with regard to certain matters before initiating acquisition proceedings-(1) Whenever a company makes in application to the appropriate Government for acquisition of any land, that Government shall direct the Collector to submit a report to it on the following matters namely :-(i) that the company has made its best endeavour to find out lands in the locality suitable for the purpose of acquisition.(ii) that the company has made all reasonable efforts to get such lands by negotiation with the person interested therein on payment of reasonable price and such efforts have failed,(iii) that the land proposed to be acquired is suitable for the purpose ;(iv) that the area of land proposed to be acquired is not excessive ;(v) that the company is in a position to utilize the land expeditiously ; and(vi) where the land proposed to be acquired is good agricultural land that no alternative suitable site can be found so as to avoid acquisition of that land... .................." It is submitted that Rule 4 is mandatory in nature and that unless the directions enjoined by Rule 4 are complied with, the notification under Section 6 of the L.A. Act will be invalid. The learned counsel submits that the aforesaid Rule came up for the consideration before this Court in the case of Devender Singh (supra), wherein it was held as under: "44. Another question which arises for our consideration is as to whether Rule 4 of the Companies Rules is mandatory or directory in nature. The High Court held it to be directory.45. Rule 4 of the Rules employs the word "shall" not once place but twice. Ordinarily, it is imperative in character. No reason has been shown before us as to why it should be held to be directory provision particularly when the Land Acquisition Act is an expropriatory legislation.46. In State of Gujarat and Anr. v. Patel Chaturbhai Narsibhai and Ors., this Court held:15. The contention of the State that the enquiry under Rule 4 is administrative and that the owner of the land is not entitled to be given an opportunity to be heard at the enquiry cannot be accepted for these reasons. The enquiry under Rule 4 shows that the Collector is to submit a report among other matters that the Company has made all reasonable efforts to get such lands by negotiation with the persons interested therein on payment of reasonable price and such efforts have failed. The persons interested therein are the owners of the land which is proposed to be acquired. The Company at such an enquiry has to show that the company made negotiations with the owners of the land. The owners of the land are, therefore, entitled to be heard at such an enquiry for the purpose of proving or disproving the reasonable efforts of the company to get such land by negotiation. The contention on behalf of the State that the owners of the land will get an opportunity when an enquiry is made under Section 5A of the Act is equally unsound. Section 17 of the Act provides that the appropriate Government may direct that the provisions of Section 5A shall not apply, and if it does so direct a declaration may be made under Section 6 at any time after the publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. Therefore, the enquiry under Section 5A may not be held.47. In General Government Servants Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Agra etc. v. Sh. Wahab Uddin and Ors. etc., this Court held:13. Sub-rule (1) requires the Government to direct the Collector to submit a report to it on the matters enumerated in Clauses (i) to (vi) of the Sub-rule (1) which is for the benefit of the Company. The purpose is to avoid acquisition of land not suitable for a Company. Clause (ii) of Sub-rule (1) requires that the Company has to make all reasonable efforts to get such lands by negotiation with the person interested therein on payment of reasonable prices and that such efforts have failed. The purpose of Clause (ii) seems to be to avoid unnecessary land acquisition proceedings and payment of exorbitant prices. The purpose of Clauses (iii), (iv) and (v) is obvious. The purpose of Clause (vi) is to avoid acquisition of good agricultural land, when other alternative land is available for the purpose. Sub-rule 2 of Rule 4 requires the Collector to give reasonable opportunity to the Company so that the Collector may hold an inquiry into the matters referred in Sub-rule (1). The Collector has to comply with Clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of Sub-rule 2 during the course of the inquiry under Sub- rule (1). The Collector under Sub-rule 3 then has to send a copy of his report of the inquiry to the appropriate Government and a copy of the report has to be forwarded by the Government to the Land Acquisition Committee constituted under Rule 3 for the purpose of advising the Government in relation to acquisition of land under Part VII of the Act, the duty of the Committee being to advise the Government on all matters relating to or arising out of acquisition of land under Part VII of the Act (Sub-rule (5) of Rule 3). No declaration shall be made by the appropriate Government under Section 6 of the Act unless the Committee has been consulted by the Government and has considered the report submitted by the Collector under Section 5A of the Act. In addition, under Clause (ii) of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 4, the Company has to execute an agreement under Section 41 of the Act. The above consideration shows that Rule 4 is mandatory; its compliance is no idle formality, unless the directions enjoined by Rule 4 are complied with, the notification under Section 6 will be invalid. A consideration of Rule 4 also shows that its compliance precedes the notification under Section 4 as well as compliance of Section 6 of the Act." 22. The learned counsel further places reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Royal Orchid Hotels Ltd. v. G. Jayaram Reddy & Ors., (2011) 10 SCC 608 wherein it was held that if the land is to be acquired for a company, then the State Government and the company are bound to comply with the provisions contained in Part VII of the L.A. Act. 23. The learned counsel further submits that the argument advanced on behalf of TML that the cost of acquisition has been borne by the public exchequer, if accepted, would in fact make this an even more egregious violation of the L.A. Act. It is submitted that this would not only mean that a colourable device has been used to circumvent the provisions of Part VII of the L.A. Act, but that there has also been a clear violation of Section 41 of the L.A. Act, which provides that the cost of acquisition must be borne by the company and not by the State. 24. The learned counsel thus, submits that the entire land acquisition proceedings being a colourable exercise of power carried out in violation of the L.A. Act and the relevant Rules be set aside. 25. Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, the learned senior council appearing on behalf of the State of West Bengal in the appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 13645 of 2008 submits that the acquisition of land in Singur for TML is illegal as the same has been done in complete violation of the provisions of Sections 4 and 6 of the L.A. Act, as well as the non-compliance with Part VII of the L.A. Act and Rules applicable for acquisition of land in favour of a Company. 26. The learned senior counsel takes us through the cabinet notes with reference to the requisition letter of TML, extracted supra and submits that it becomes very clear from a perusal of the documents on record that the scouting and selection of land was done completely by TML, much before the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act. The learned senior counsel further submits that initially, TML had submitted a proposal of requirement of 600 acres of land, which was subsequently increased to 1000 acres without any justification for seeking such vast extent of lands in favour of TML. This action of the State Government and its officers shows a complete non application of mind on the part of the cabinet while assessing how much land is needed for the project, before acquiring lands at the behest of TML. 27. The learned senior counsel further submits that post the amendment to the L.A. Act in the year 1984, it becomes clear that the acquisition for a company must comply with the requirements of Part VII of the L.A. Act, and must only be done in accordance with the same. The same cannot be fused with acquisition of land for a public purpose. The learned senior counsel places reliance on the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Amendment Act 68 of 1984, the relevant part of which has been extracted supra. 28. The learned senior counsel further submits that Parliamentary Debates relating to the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 also indicate that acquisition for company could be done only under Part VII of the L.A. Act. 29. The learned senior counsel places reliance on the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Chaitram Verma and Ors. v. Land Acquisition Officer, Raipur and Ors., A.I.R. 1994 MP 74 and the Allahabad High Court in the case of Pooran and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., 2010 Supp All. L.J. 1 wherein it has been held that after the amendment to the L.A. Act in the year 1984, acquisition of land for a company can happen only in accordance with Part VII of the L.A. Act. 30. The learned senior counsel further contends that the doctrine of infusion of public revenue by the government or by corporations covered by Section 3(cc) of the L.A. would not be available after the amendments made in the year 1984. In the pre-1984 legal position, there was lack of clarity in the inclusive definition of public purpose in Section 3(f) to the L.A. Act. Therefore, the Supreme Court in a number of cases resorted to the second proviso to Section 6 for holding that infusion of public revenue would make the acquisition for a company an acquisition for public purpose. After the exclusion of companies from the purview of Section 3(f) of the L.A. Act, infusion of public revenue cannot be resorted to for holding that acquisition of land in favour of a company is one for public purpose. The learned senior counsel thus, submits that the reliance placed by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of TML on the pre-1984 decisions, including Pandit Jhandu Lal v. State of Punjab, (1961) 2 SCR 459 Somawanti v. State of Punjab, (1963) 2 SCR 774 Jage Ram v. State of Haryana, (1971) 1 SCC 671 and Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, (1975) 4 SCC 285 is misplaced as the same have no application to the facts of the instant case as the same pertain to the pre-1984 situation. It is further submitted that the reliance placed upon the decisions of this Court in the cases of Pratibha Nema (supra) and Amarnath Ashram (supra) has no bearing on the facts of the instant case as the same have not correctly appreciated the scope of the 1984 amendment to the provision Section 3 (f) of the L.A. Act. 31. The learned senior counsel further contends that the objections filed by the landowners/ cultivators before the Land Acquisition Collector after publication of the notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act were also rejected under Section 5-A(2) of the L.A. Act in a mechanical manner without any application of mind. The learned senior counsel contends that the State Government of West Bengal also recorded its satisfaction under Section 6 of the L.A. Act by recording its satisfaction mechanically, without considering the need of the lands. It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel that with regard to conducting an inquiry under Section 5-A(2) of the L.A. Act, this Court has held in a catena of decisions that it is a valuable right available to the land owners and cultivators, and therefore, it casts a statutory obligation on the part of the Collector and the State Government to consider the objections and take a decision in accordance with law. The application of mind by the concerned Land Acquisition Collector including the State Government before issuing the notification under Section 6 of the Act, for acquisition of lands is a sine qua non. The learned senior counsel places reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Raghubir Singh Sherawat v. State of Haryana and Ors., (2012) 1 SCC 792 wherein it has been held as under: "In this context, it is necessary to remember that the rules of natural justice have been ingrained in the scheme of Section 5A with a view to ensure that before any person is deprived of his land by way of compulsory acquisition, he must get an opportunity to oppose the decision of the State Government and/or its agencies/instrumentalities to acquire the particular parcel of land. At the hearing, the objector can make an effort to convince the Land Acquisition Collector to make recommendation against the acquisition of his land. He can also point out that land proposed to be acquired is not suitable for the purpose specified in the notification issued under Section 4(1). Not only this, he can produce evidence to show that another piece of land is available and the same can be utilized for execution of the particular project or scheme. Though, it is neither possible nor desirable to make a list of the grounds on which the landowner can persuade the Collector to make recommendations against the proposed acquisition of land, but what is important is that the Collector should give a fair opportunity of hearing to the objector and objectively consider his plea against the acquisition of land. Only thereafter, he should make recommendations supported by brief reasons as to why the particular piece of land should or should not be acquired and whether or not the plea put forward by the objector merits acceptance. In other words, the recommendations made by the Collector must reflect objective application of mind to the objections filed by the landowners and other interested persons." 32. The learned senior counsel further places reliance on the observations made by this Court in the case of Surinder Singh Brar & Ors. v. Union of India, (2013) 1 SCC 403 to submit that the Collector did not apply his mind at all while considering the objections under Section 5-A (2) of the L.A. Act. In that case, this Court observed as under: "The reason why the LAO did not apply his mind to the objections filed by the Appellants and other landowners is obvious. He was a minion in the hierarchy of the administration of the Union Territory of Chandigarh and could not have even thought of making recommendations contrary to what was contained in the letter sent by the Administrator to Surinder Singh Brar. If he had shown the courage of acting independently and made recommendation against the acquisition of land, he would have surely been shifted from that post and his career would have been jeopardized. In the system of governance which we have today, junior officers in the administration cannot even think of, what to say of, acting against the wishes/dictates of their superiors. One who violates this unwritten code of conduct does so at his own peril and is described as a foolhardy. Even those constituting higher strata of services follow the path of least resistance and find it most convenient to tow the line of their superiors. Therefore, the LAO cannot be blamed for having acted as an obedient subordinate of the superior authorities, including the Administrator. However, that cannot be a legitimate ground to approve the reports prepared by him without even a semblance of consideration of the objections filed by the Appellants and other landowners and we have no hesitation to hold that the LAO failed to discharge the statutory duty cast upon him to prepare a report after objectively considering the objections filed under Section 5A(1) and submissions made by the objectors during the course of personal hearing." 33. The learned senior counsel thus, contends that the acquisition of the vast tracts of lands of the owners/cultivators, depriving them of their constitutional rights for non-compliance with the mandatory procedure as provided under Section 5-A (2) and Part VII of the L.A. Act. Therefore the acquisition proceedings are void ab initio in law. 34. Mr. K. Parasaran, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of WBIDC adopts the arguments advanced by learned senior counsel Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi on behalf of the West Bengal State Government. 35. On the other hand, Mr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of TML contends that the government is free to acquire certain lands keeping in mind a certain entity, and the mere fact that the acquisition of lands has been done keeping that entity in mind will not render the acquisition invalid. It is submitted that the State of West Bengal as a matter of Industrial Policy decided to make efforts to establish more manufacturing industries with a view to attract more private sector investment in the manufacturing industry. The tremendous growth potential of automobile industry in the State of West Bengal would have boosted economy, created job opportunities, direct and indirect, and have had an impact on the secondary employment in the associated service sectors. The learned senior counsel further places strong reliance on the constitution bench decision of this Court in the case of Aflatoon (supra), wherein this Court has held that the acquisition of land for the "planned development of Delhi" was a valid public purpose. It was held that the fact that after the acquisition, the land was handed over to the co-operative housing societies would not attract Part VII of the L.A. Act, 1894. This Court has held as under: "24. It was contended by Dr. Singhvi that the acquisition was really for the cooperative housing societies which are companies within the definition of the word company in Section 3(e) of the Act, and, therefore, the provisions of Part VII of the Act should have been complied with. Both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court were of the view that the acquisition was not for company. We see no reason to differ from their view. The mere fact that after the acquisition the Government proposed to hand over, or, in fact, handed over, a portion of the property acquired for development to the cooperative housing societies would not make the acquisition one for company. Nor are we satisfied that there is any merit in the contention that compensation to be paid for the acquisition came from the consideration paid by the cooperative societies. In the light of the averments in the counter affidavit filed in the writ petitions here, it is difficult to hold that it was cooperatives which provided the fund for the acquisition. Merely because the Government allotted a part of the property to cooperative societies for development, it would not follow that the acquisition was for cooperative societies, and therefore, Part VII of the Act was attracted." 36. The learned senior counsel further placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Mandir Shree Sita Ramji v. Land Acquisition Collector & Ors., (2005) 6 SCC 745 wherein it was held as under: "12. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. In our view, there is no merit in the challenge to the proposed acquisition on the ground that the acquisition was for the purposes of the society covered by Agreement dated 9th May, 1972. The subsequent Notification is merely a follow up of the earlier Notification. The entire acquisition is for "planned development of Delhi". To be remembered that Appellants land is in the midst of the 35000 acres which have been acquired pursuant to the Notification under Section 4 issued in 1959. The Agreement dated 19th May, 1972 does not specify that it is the Appellants land which is to be allotted to that Society. The Society is to be allotted some land and even if Appellants land is allotted to this Society, after acquisition, it will not mean that the acquisition was for this Society. Therefore, the provisions of Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act need not have been complied with." 37. The learned senior counsel submits that in the instant case, the mere fact that TML looked at and inspected some sites before the lands were finally acquired does not take away from the fact that the lands were, in fact, acquired in favour of WBIDC for a public purpose. It is further submitted that the fact that the compensation amount of Rs. 138 crores was deposited by WBIDC and not by TML also keeps the acquisition of the lands in the instant case out of the purview of Part VII of the L.A. Act and the relevant Rules. It is submitted that the essential test to determine as to whether the acquisition of the lands in question is for public purpose, is whether the funds for acquisition are coming from public funds. The learned senior counsel places reliance on the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of Pandit Jhandu Lal (supra), wherein it was held as under: "Section 6 is, in terms, made subject to the provisions of Part VII of the Act. The provisions of Part VII, read with section 6 of the Act, lead to this result that the declaration for the acquisition for a Company shall not be made unless the compensation to be awarded for the property is to be paid by a company. The declaration for the acquisition for a public purpose, similarly, cannot be made unless the compensation, wholly or partly, is to be paid out of public funds. Therefore, in the case of an acquisition for a Company simpliciter, the declaration cannot be made without satisfying the requirements of Part VII. But, that does not necessarily mean that an acquisition of a Company for a public purpose cannot be made otherwise than under the provisions of Part VII, if the cost or a portion of the cost of the acquisition is to come out of public funds. In other words, the essential condition for acquisition for a public purpose is that the cost of the acquisition is should be borne, wholly or in part, out of public funds. Hence, an acquisition for a Company may also be made for a public purpose, within the meaning of the Act, if a part or the whole of the cost of acquisition is met by public funds. If, on the other hand, the acquisition for a Company is to be made at the cost entirely of the Company itself, such an acquisition comes under the provisions of Part VII. As in the present instance, it appears that part at any rate of the compensation to be awarded for the acquisition is to come eventually from out of public revenues, it must be held that the acquisition is not for a Company simpliciter. It was not, therefore, necessary to go through the procedure prescribed by Part VII. We, therefore, agree with the conclusion of the High Court, though not for the same reasons." The learned senior counsel further submits that the above position of law was reiterated by this Court more recently in the case of Pratibha Nema v. State of M.P., (2003) 10 SCC 626 wherein it was held as under: "Thus the distinction between public purpose acquisition and Part VII acquisition has got blurred under the impact of judicial interpretation of relevant provisions. The main and perhaps the deceive distinction lies in the fact whether cost of acquisition comes out of public funds wholly or partly. Here again, even a token or nominal contribution by the Government was held to be sufficient compliance with the second proviso to Section 6 as held in a catena of decisions. The net result is that by contributing even a trifling sum, the character and pattern of acquisition could be changed by the Government. In ultimate analysis, what is considered to be an acquisition for facilitating the setting up of an industry in private sector could get imbued with the character of public purpose acquisition if only the Government comes forward to sanction the payment of a nominal sum towards compensation. In the present state of law, that seems to be the real position." 38. The learned senior counsel further contends that this Court has in fact, also held that it is enough if only a part of the amount comes from public funds to make the acquisition as one for public purpose. Reliance has been placed on the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of Somawanti (supra), wherein it was held as under: "We would like to add that the view taken in Senja Naickens case I.L.R. (1926) Mad. 308 has been followed by the various High Courts of India. On the basis of the correctness of that view the State Governments have been acquiring private properties all over the country by contributing only token amounts towards the cost of acquisition. Titles to many such properties would be unsettled if we were now to take the view that partly at public expense means substantially at public expense. therefore, on the principle of stare decisis the view taken in Senja Naickens case I.L.R. (1926) Mad. 308 should not be disturbed. We would, however, guard ourselves against being understood to say that a token contribution by the State towards the cost of acquisition will be sufficient compliance with the law in each and every case. Whether such contribution meets the requirements of the law would depend upon the facts of every case. Indeed the fact that the States contribution is nominal may well indicate, in particular circumstances that the action of the State was a colourable exercise of power. In our opinion part does not necessarily mean a substantial part and that it will be open to the Court in every case which comes up before it to examine whether the contribution made by the state satisfies the requirement of the law." 39. It is further submitted that the said position was reiterated by this Court in the case of Jage Ram (supra), wherein it was held that a contribution of Rs. 100/- by the State Government was sufficient to take the acquisition of land outside the purview of Part VII of the L.A. Act. 40. The learned senior counsel further contends that the cabinet meeting and cabinet memo do not substitute the notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act, as well as the inquiry by the Land Acquisition Collector. It is submitted that even after the cabinet approval, it was upon the Land Acquisition Collector to survey and decide whether the lands in question can be acquired for that particular purpose or not. The discretion of the Land Acquisition Collector was unfettered and uncompromised. It is submitted that the inquiry of the Land Acquisition Collector was submitted in the instant case, and all the requirements as provided for under Part II of the L.A. Act were complied with while acquiring the lands in question in the instant case. 41. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the parties. Before we examine the contentions in detail and consider the matter on merits, it is important to address an issue raised by Mr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Mr. Gopal Jain, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of TML, that the State of West Bengal cannot be allowed to resile from the position taken by them in their pleadings, without even filing an affidavit. It is contended by them that the State of West Bengal had specifically contended before the High Court that Part VII of the L.A. Act has no application in the instant case and the acquisition of land was one which was done in the public interest. The learned senior counsel submit that even before the Supreme Court, the State of West Bengal has stated in its counter affidavit that establishing a new industry is the public purpose as envisaged under Section 3(f) of the L.A. Act and that in the instant case, it was the state government which had acquired the lands in favour of WBIDC for the purpose of fulfilling its industrialization policy in the State of West Bengal. 42. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned senior counsel very vehemently contends that the State Government of West Bengal and WBIDC cannot be allowed to change their stand before this Court in these proceedings at the time of arguments merely because of change of Government in the State of West Bengal after the completion of the land acquisition proceedings. It is further contended that the change of stand by the State government at this stage without filing an affidavit amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice. Strong reliance is placed by him on the decision of this Court in the case of Jal Mahal Resort (P) Ltd. v. K.P. Sharma, (2014) 8 SCC 804 in this regard. 43. Further reliance is placed by him on the decision of this Court in the case of Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Corpn. Federation v. B. Narasimha Reddy, (2011) 9 SCC 286 wherein it was held as under: "40. In the matter of Government of a State, the succeeding Government is duty bound to continue and carry on the unfinished job of the previous Government, for the reason that the action is that of the "State", within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, which continues to subsist and therefore, it is not required that the new Government can plead contrary from the State action taken by the previous Government in respect of a particular subject. The State, being a continuing body can be stopped from changing its stand in a given case, but where after holding enquiry it came to the conclusion that action was not in conformity with law, the doctrine of estoppel would not apply. Thus, unless the act done by the previous Government is found to be contrary to the statutory provisions, unreasonable or against policy, the State should not change its stand merely because the other political party has come into power. "Political agenda of an individual or a political party should not be subversive of rule of law". The Government has to rise above the nexus of vested interest and nepotism etc. as the principles of governance have to be tested on the touchstone of justice, equity and fair play. The decision must be taken in good faith and must be legitimate." Reliance is also placed by him on the decision of this Court in the case of M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu & Ors., (1999) 6 SCC 464 wherein it was held as under: "......No doubt Mahapalika is a continuing body and it will be estopped from changing its stand in the given case. But when Mahapalika finds that its action was contrary to the provisions of law by which it was constituted there could certainly be no impediment in its way to change its stand. There cannot be any estoppel operating against the Mahapalika." 44. It is further contended that State government should not be allowed to change its stand merely because some other political party has come into power after the acquisition proceedings and the legal proceedings of the land owners were concluded in the High Court by passing the impugned common judgment and order. 45. Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the State of West Bengal on the other hand rebuts the above submission made by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of TML. It is submitted that there is absolutely no law which mandates that upon the change of government, the stance taken earlier cannot be changed, more so, when the earlier stance is clearly opposed to both law and public policy. The learned senior counsel submits that even in the case of A.P. Dairy (supra) on which reliance has been placed upon by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of TML, this Court has held that the state can change its stand if it is found that the act done by the previous government is contrary to provisions of law or is against public policy. 46. The learned senior counsel further submits that in the instant case, having regard to the nature of acquisition of lands made by the previous Government, the lands were acquired by the State Government in exercise of its eminent domain power without following the statutory provisions contained in Sections 3(f), 4 and 6 of the L.A. Act as well as Part VII of the L.A. Act. It is submitted that the previous government of the state has violated statutory provisions of the L.A. Act in acquiring the vast extent of lands having immense agricultural potential, thus depriving the agricultural occupation of a large number of land owners/ cultivators, thereby depriving them of their constitutional and fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the acquisition of the lands in the instant case has been made at the instance of TML. Therefore, the previous Government has violated the law in acquiring the lands. It is submitted that the stand of the present government becomes clear from the fact that it enacted the Singur Act, 2011, the constitutional validity of which has been challenged by TML by way of filing petitions, which were allowed by the High Court, against which judgment, the State Government filed SLPs which are currently pending before this Court. Therefore, the State Government has changed its stand in not justifying the acquisition proceedings.47. We are unable to agree with the contentions advanced by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of TML. While it is true that rule of law cannot be sacrificed for the sake of furthering political agendas, it is also a well established position of law that a stand taken by the state government can be changed subsequently if there is material on record to show that the earlier action of the acquisition of lands by the State Government was illegal or suffers from legal malafides or colourable exercise of power. 48. Further, in any case, it is also well settled position of law that this Court is not bound by affidavits and counter affidavits filed by the parties. In exercise of its power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, this Court can examine the material on record in order to determine whether the action of the previous state government in acquiring the lands in the instant case was in accordance with law or not. In the case of P.S.R. Sadanatham v. Arunachalam, (1980) 3 SCC 141 a Constitution Bench of this Court held as under: "7. .........In express terms, Article 136 does not confer a right of appeal on a party as such but it confers a wide discretionary power on the Supreme Court to interfere in suitable cases. The discretionary dimension is considerable but that relates to the power of the court. The question is whether it spells by implication, a fair procedure as contemplated by Article 21. In our view, it does. Article 136 is a special jurisdiction. It is residuary power; it is extraordinary in its amplitude, its limit, when it chases injustice, in the sky itself. This Court functionally fulfils itself by reaching out to injustice wherever it is and this power is largely derived in the common run of cases from Art 136............"(emphasis laid by this Court) In the instant case, the cabinet records, communication between TML and representative of the State Government, the notifications published under Sections 4 and 6 of the L.A. Act are all on record. We shall examine the same to assess the validity of the acquisition of the lands in these proceedings. 49. The above said preliminary objection, as has been raised by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of TML is thus, not accepted. We now proceed to decide the matter on merits. 50. On the basis of the factual and rival legal contentions advanced on behalf of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties as well as the material produced on record and from perusal of the original files, the following points would arise for consideration of this Court: 1. Whether the lands involved in these proceedings have been acquired for a public purpose or for a Company (TML)?2. If the lands have been acquired for a Company, whether the procedure provided for under Part VII of the L.A. Act has been complied with by the state government?3. Whether the inquiry as contemplated under Section 5-A(2) of the L.A. Act has been duly conducted by the Land Acquisition Collector?4. Whether the Land Acquisition Collector has assigned reasons in his report for rejecting the objections raised by the landowners/cultivators after application of mind?5. Whether the report of the Land Acquisition Collector is based on the decision of the State Government taken prior to issuing notification under Section 6 of the L.A. Act?6. Whether the awards have been passed after holding due inquiry under Section 9 of the L.A. Act and also in compliance with the principles of natural justice?7. Whether the compensation awarded in favour of the land owners/cultivators is based on a proper appreciation of the market value of the land?8. What is the legal effect on the acquisition proceedings of not conducting an inquiry under Section 5-A (2) and passing composite awards under Section 11 of the L.A. Act?9. What order can be passed in these proceedings at this stage?Answer to Point Nos. 1 and 2 51. Issue Nos. 1 and 2 are inter-related, hence, they are answered together as under: Section 3(f) of the Act defines acquisition of land for public purpose by the State Government, which reads thus:"3(f) the expression "public purpose includes-............(iii) the provision of land for planned development of land from public funds in pursuance of any scheme or policy of Government and subsequent disposal thereof in whole or in part by lease, assignment or outright sale with the object of securing further development as planned;(iv) the provision of land for a corporation owned or controlled by the State;............(vi) the provision of land for carrying out any educational, housing, health or slum clearance scheme sponsored by Government, or by any authority established by Government for carrying out any such scheme, or, with the prior approval of the appropriate Government, by a local authority, or a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860), or under any corresponding law for the time being in force in a State, or a co-operative society within the meaning of any law relating to co-operative societies for the time being in force in any State;(vii) the provision of land for any other scheme of development sponsored by Government or, with the prior approval of the appropriate Government, by a local authority;.........but does not include acquisition of lands for Companies"(emphasis laid by this Court) The definition of the term Company was inserted in the definition of Section 3(e) of the L.A. Act by Act 68 of 1984 with effect from 24.09.1984. Section 3(e) of the L.A. Act defines a company as: "(i) a company as defined in Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 19560 other than a Government Company referred to in cl. (cc) ............ " 52. Section 3(f) of the L.A. Act, which defines what public purpose is for the purpose of acquisition of land, clearly indicates that the acquisition of land for companies is not covered within the public purpose. It is in light of this statutory scheme under the provisions of the L.A. Act that it becomes crucial to examine whether the lands in question were acquired for a public purpose or was it acquired by the State Government for a company (TML) in the instant case. 53. A perusal of the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act extracted supra clearly shows that the proposed lands in the notification are needed for the setting up of the Tata Small Car project in mouza Berabery, P.S. Singur, District Hooghly.54. The Cabinet Memo dated 30.05.2006, extracted supra, at Serial No. 3 mentioned acquisition of lands measuring 1053 acres by WBIDC for the purpose of setting up of the Tata Motors `Small Car Project in the State of West Bengal. The said Cabinet Memo received the approval of the Chief Minister on 05.06.2006 after which the notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act was published in the official gazette.55. As far as the proposal is concerned, there is nothing on record to indicate that WBIDC made such requisition to the State Government giving its proposal for acquisition of the proposed lands mentioned in the notification issued under Section 4 of the L.A. Act, which are required for `public purpose as defined under Section 3(f) (iii) of the L.A. Act, which enables the WBIDC to give requisition for acquiring the lands in its favour for the planned development of land out of the public funds in pursuance of any scheme or policy of Government. As is evident from the Notifications issued under the L.A. Act and from the cabinet memo, there is no mention about such requisition being made by the Corporation to the State Government regarding the proposed lands being required for acquisition in favour of WBIDC for planned development of land in pursuance of any scheme or policy of the Government. Even from a perusal of the letter dated 29.08.2006, written by the Joint Secretary, Land and Land Reforms Department, Government of West Bengal, it becomes clear that the state government did not apply its mind while considering the need of the land and merely followed the document on which the Collector had signed. It reads as under: "It is clear from the report and records relating to the proceedings u/s 5A of the L.A. Act, 1894 received from the L.A. Collector after disposal of objections from the persons having rights and interest in land in the Berabari and Khaserbari mouzas of Singur PS where 6 LA cases comprising for setting up Tata Small Car Project have been initiated, that the Collector did not find any objection having merits for change/ modification of the area within the conceived area of acquisition and he has recommended the land covered u/s 4 notification in the aforesaid mouzas are fit for acquisition for the public purpose on behalf of WBIDC, the RB.On perusal of the reports and records we may agree to the above recommendation of the Collector and issue declaration u/s/ 6 as prescribed in the aforesaid Act." The letter of the Joint Secretary mentions the WBIDC to be the requisitioning body. However, the same finds no mention in the notification issued under Section 6 of the L.A. Act, the relevant portion of which has been extracted supra. 56. Even if the argument advanced on behalf of TML were to be accepted, that it was the policy of the state government to generate employment and increase socio economic development in the State, the relevant policy documents are not forthcoming in the original acquisition files which were made available for this Court. Thus, by no stretch of imagination can the acquisition of lands in the instant case be said to be at the instance of WBIDC, or for the fulfilment of some scheme of the Corporation or the State Government. Thus, it cannot be said to attract Section 3(f)(iii), (iv) or (vi) either. On the contrary, what is on record is the minutes of meetings between the representatives of the West Bengal Government and TML dated 17.03.2006, which state that TML is interested in setting up a `special category project in the State to manufacture 2,50,000 units for its `Small Car Project. As per the project requirement mentioned in the letter written by Deputy General Manager TML to the Principal Secretary, Commerce & Industries Department, Government of West Bengal dated 19.01.2006, 400 acres of land were required for setting up of the factory, 200 acres for vendor park and 100 acres for township. The said letter was forwarded by the Commerce and Industries Department to the Principal Secretary, Land and Land Reforms Department on 24.01.2006 and the Finance Secretary for their consideration and seeking their views in this regard. It is undisputed fact that the State Government has not deposited the public money towards the cost of acquisition of land to initiate the acquisition proceedings to show that the acquisition of lands is for public purpose which is an essential requirement under the provision of Section 6 of the L.A. Act. As can be seen, the notification issued under Section 6 of the L.A. Act merely provides that the land is needed for the setting up of the Tata Small Car project, which is a public purpose under the L.A. Act. In the case of Usha Stud and Agricultural Farms Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Ors., (2013) 4 SCC 210 a three judge bench of this Court, after adverting to a catena of case law on the subject held as under: "The ratio of the aforesaid judgments is that Section 5-A(2), which represents statutory embodiment of the rule of audi alteram partem, gives an opportunity to the objector to make an endeavour to convince the Collector that his land is not required for the public purpose specified in the notification issued under Section 4(1) or that there are other valid reasons for not acquiring the same. That section also makes it obligatory for the Collector to submit report(s) to the appropriate Government containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by him so that the Government may take appropriate decision on the objections. Section 6(1) provides that if the appropriate Government is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made by the Collector under Section 5-A that particular land is needed for the specified public purpose then a declaration should be made. This necessarily implies that the State Government is required to apply mind to the report of the Collector and take final decision on the objections filed by the landowners and other interested persons. Then and then only, a declaration can be made under Section 6(1)."(emphasis laid by this Court) Thus, there seems to be no application of mind either at the stage of issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act, or the report of Collector under Section 5-A (2) of the L.A. Act or the issuance of the final notification under Section 6 of the L.A. Act. Such an acquisition, if allowed to sustain, would lead to the attempt to justify any and every acquisition of land of the most vulnerable sections of the society in the name of `public purpose to promote socio-economic development. 57. On the other hand, it is the Corporation which has raised the cost of acquisition by way of taking loan from nationalized banks and the same is said to have been deposited with the State Government. As has rightly been contended by Mr. Kalyan Banerjee, learned senior counsel by placing reliance on various decisions of this Court, which have been adverted to supra, WBIDC cannot even be said to be a local authority for the purpose of the L.A. Act and therefore the deposit of money towards acquisition cost does not satisfy the statutory requirement under Section 6 of the Act. Thus, the contention advanced by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of TML that the acquisition in the instant case is one for public purpose as the funds for same have come from public revenue, also cannot be accepted. Thus, neither there is a scheme of the Government, nor the funds have been derived from the public revenue and that is why the acquisition in the instant case cannot be said to be one for `public purpose. 58. The contention advanced by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of TML that this Court has consistently taken the view that acquisition in favour of a statutory corporation or development authority for land development including industrial development, makes the acquisition of lands one for `public purpose, as defined under Section 3(f) (iv) or (vii) of the L.A. Act and there is no need to follow the procedure for acquisition as laid down in Part VII of the L.A. Act, cannot be accepted by me. After the passing of the Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 1984, acquisition of land for a company is no longer covered under `public purpose in view of Section 3(f)(viii) of the L.A. Act. Apart from the above statutory provisions inserted by way of an amendment the Objects and Reasons for such amendment referred to supra upon which strong reliance has been placed by Mr. Colin Gonsalves and Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel on behalf of the owners and State would make it abundantly clear that the mandatory procedure as laid down under Part VII of the L.A. Act read with the rules framed there under was not followed by the State Government before the notifications were published. 59. From a perusal of both the statutory provisions of the L.A. Act as well as the case law on the subject referred to supra upon which strong reliance has been rightly placed by the learned senior counsel on behalf of the owners/cultivators and State Government, it becomes clear that the state government can acquire land under the public purpose clauses (iv) and (vii) of the Act for industrial estates, housing colonies and economic parks/zones even where the type of industry has been identified. So, an acquisition made for an industrial estate of a particular type of industry like small cars is permissible under the `public purpose for the purpose of the L.A. Act under the above clauses of Section 3 (f) of the Act. Before land could be acquired, the procedure consistent with the statutory provisions of law must be followed mandatorily. There is nothing in law which would support the acquisition of land for a particular Company under the guise of `public purpose, rendering the exception provided under Section 3(f)(viii) of the L.A. Act useless and nugatory. 60. In the case of Devender Pal Singh (supra), this Court has held that when the acquisition of land is for a public purpose, it is Part II of the L.A. Act which would apply and where the acquisition of land is at the instance of a Company, the procedure to be adopted is laid down in Part VII of the L.A. Act. It was held as under: "40. Distinction between acquisition under Part II and Part VII are selfevident. The State was not only obligated to issue a notification clearly stating as to whether the acquisition is for a public purpose or for the company. Section 6 categorically states so, as would appear from the second proviso appended thereto.41. A declaration is to be made either for a public purpose or for a company. It cannot be for both.42. It is furthermore trite that Land Acquisition Act is an expropriatory legislation. (See Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai and Ors.; and Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Pure Industrial Cock & Chem. Ltd. and Ors.)43. Expropriatory legislation, as is well-known, must be strictly construed. When the properties of a citizen is being compulsorily acquired by a State in exercise of its power of Eminent Domain, the essential ingredients thereof, namely, existence of a public purpose and payment of compensation are principal requisites therefore. In the case of acquisition of land for a private company, existence of a public purpose being not a requisite criteria, other statutory requirements call for strict compliance, being imperative in character."(emphasis laid by this Court) 61. The decisions of this Court in the cases of Pandit Jhandu Lal (supra), Somawanti (supra), Jage Ram (supra) and Aflatoon (supra) upon which strong reliance has been placed by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of TML, have no bearing on the facts of the instant case, as they were decided prior to the enactment of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, except the decision of this Court in the case of Pratibha Nema (supra). 62. In the case of Pratibha Nema, this Court did not consider the statement of objects and reasons of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, the relevant portion of which has been extracted supra. Further, the fact situation in that case was also very different as this Court was dealing with acquisition of land for the purpose of setting up a `diamond park pursuant to the policy decision by the state government of Madhya Pradesh. 63. In this day and age of fast paced development, it is completely understandable for the state government to want to acquire lands to set up industrial units. What, however, cannot be lost sight of is the fact that when the brunt of this `development is borne by the weakest sections of the society, more so, poor agricultural workers who have no means of raising a voice against the action of the mighty state government, as is the case in the instant fact situation, it is the onerous duty of the state Government to ensure that the mandatory procedure laid down under the L.A. Act and the Rules framed there under are followed scrupulously otherwise the acquisition proceedings will be rendered void ab initio in law. Compliance with the provisions of the L.A. Act cannot be treated as an empty formality by the State Government, as that would be akin to handing over the eminent domain power of State to the executive, which cannot be permitted in a democratic country which is required to be governed by the rule of law. This Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh, AIR 1980 SC 318 has held with regard to the legal mala fides as under: "9. The question, then, is what is mala fides in the jurisprudence of power? Legal malice is gibberish unless juristic clarity keeps it separate from the popular concept of personal vice. Pithily put, bad faith which invalidates the exercise of power-sometimes called colourable exercise or fraud on power and oftentimes overlaps motives, passions and satisfactions-is the attainment of ends beyond the sanctioned purposes of power by simulation or pretension of gaining a legitimate goal. If the use of the power is for the fulfillment of a legitimate object the actuation or catalysation by malice is not legicidal. The action is bad where the true object is to reach an end different from the one for which the power is entrusted, goaded by extraneous considerations, good or bad, but irrelevant to the entrustment. When the custodian of power is influenced in its exercise by considerations outside those for promotion of which the power is vested the court calls it a colourable exercise and is undeceived by illusion. In a broad, blurred sense, Benjamin Disraeli was not off the mark even in Law when he stated: "I repeat...that all power is a trust-that we are accountable for its exercise-that, from the people, and for the people, all springs, and all must exist". Fraud on power voids the order if it is not exercised bona fide for the end designed. Fraud in this context is not equal to moral turpitude and embraces all cases in which the action impugned is to effect some object which is beyond the purpose and intent of the power, whether this be malice- laden or even benign. If the purpose is corrupt the resultant act is bad. If considerations, foreign to the scope of the power or extraneous to the statute, enter the verdict or impel the action, mala fides or fraud on power, vitiates the acquisition or other official act."(emphasis laid by this Court) In the case of S. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72 a constitution bench of this Court has held that: "In legal parlance it would be a case of a fraud on a power, though no corrupt motive or bargain is imputed. In this sense, if it could be shown that an authority exercising a power has taken into account - it may even be bona fide and with the best of intention,- as a relevant factor something which it could not properly take into account, in deciding whether or not to exercise the power or the manner or extent to which it should be exercised, the exercise of the power would be bad. Sometimes Courts are confronted with cases where the purposes sought to be achieved are mixed, - some relevant and some alien to the purpose. The courts have, on occasions, resolved the difficulty by finding out the dominant purpose which impelled the action, and where the power itself is conditioned by a purpose, have proceeded to invalidate the exercise of the power when any irrelevant purpose is proved to have entered the mind of the authority (See Sadler v. Sheffield Corporation [1924] 1 CH 483. as also Lord Dennings observation Earl fitzwilliam etc. v. Minister of T. & C. Planning [1951] 2 K.B. 284,. This is on the principle that if in such a situation the dominant purpose is unlawful then the act itself is unlawful and it is not cured by saying that they had another purpose which was lawful."(emphasis laid by this Court) It is also a well settled principle of law that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute the act must be done in that manner or not at all. In the case of Babu Verghese & Ors. v. Bar Council Of Kerala & Ors., (1999) 3 SCC 422 this Court has held as under: "31. It is the basic principle of law long settled that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any Statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all. The origin of this rule is traceable to the decision in Taylor v. Taylor which was followed by Lord Roche in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor who stated as under :"Where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all."32. This rule has since been approved by this Court in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh and Anr. v. State of Vindhya Pradesh and again in Deep Chand v. State of Rajasthan. These cases were considered by a Three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Singhara Singh and Ors. and the rule laid down in Nazir Ahmads case (supra) was again upheld. This rule has since been applied to the exercise of jurisdiction by courts and has also been recognized as a salutary principle of administrative law."(emphasis laid by this Court) 64. In the instant case, what makes the acquisition proceedings perverse is not the fact that the lands were needed for setting up of an automobile industry, which would help to generate employment as well as promote socio economic development in the State, but what makes the acquisition proceedings perverse is that the proper procedure as laid down under Part VII of the L.A. Act read with Rules was not followed by the State Government. The acquisition of land for and at the instance of the company was sought to be disguised as acquisition of land for `public purpose in order to circumvent compliance with the mandatory provisions of Part VII of the L.A. Act. This action of the State Government is grossly perverse and illegal and void ab initio in law and such an exercise of power by the state government for acquisition of lands cannot be allowed under any circumstance. If such acquisitions of lands are permitted, it would render entire Part VII of the L.A. Act as nugatory and redundant, as then virtually every acquisition of land in favour of a company could be justified as one for a `public purpose on the ground that the setting up of industry would generate employment and promote socio economic development in the State. Surely, that could not have been the intention of the legislature in providing the provisions of Part VII read with 3 (f) of the L.A. Act. From a perusal of the materials on record from the original files, the relevant extracts from the letters addressed by TML to the State Government of West Bengal and Cabinet notes which have been extracted and discussed supra, it becomes clear that in the instant case, the lands in question were acquired by the State Government for a particular Company (TML), at the instance of that Company. Further, the exact location and site of the land was also identified by TML. Even the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the L.A. Act clearly state that the land in question was being acquired for the `Small Car Project of TML. In view of the foregoing reasons, by no stretch of imagination can such an acquisition of lands be held to be one for `public purpose and not for a company. If the acquisition of lands in the instant case does not amount to one for the company, I do not know what would.65. In view of the aforesaid categorical findings recorded by me based on the materials on record, including cabinet memo, minutes of meetings between representatives of the state government and TML as well as the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the L.A. Act, 1984, it is clear that the acquisition of lands in the instant case is for the Company (TML). Admittedly, the procedure for acquisition as contemplated under Sections 39, 40 and 41 of Part VII of the L.A. Act read with Rules 3, 4 and 5 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 has not been followed, as the acquisition was sought to be guised as one for `public purpose under Sections 3(f) (iii), (iv) and (vii) of the L.A. Act. The acquisition of land in the instant case in favour of the Company is thus, improper for not following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Part VII of the L.A. Act and Rules and therefore the acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed.66. Further, even after the lands were acquired in its favour, TML could not start operations in accordance with the terms of the lease deed. The same becomes clear from a perusal of the letter dated 28.09.2010 written by the Managing Director, India Operations of TML to the Managing Director of WBIDC, which reads as under: "We had proposed an integrated Automobile Plant consisting of manufacturing operations by Tata Motors as well as co-locating vendors in the same complex.You were kind enough to lease 645 acres to Tata Motors and 290 acres to vendors as recommended by Tata Motors......We, therefore, concluded that a peaceful environment could not be created for normal working of the plant and we had to take the most painful decision to close the operations on 3rd October, 2008. Meanwhile, we also took permission from you to remove our equioment and machinery, which we have now done. We, invested Rs. 440 crores and of course continue to incur Rs. 1 crore per month towards maintenance. This is an addition to the investment of about Rs. 171 crores (inclusive of Rs. 40 crores for land premium charges) done by our vendors.............We have also had discussions with the Honble Industry Minister as well as with the Industry Secretary for finding various alternative uses for this plant. In this respect, we would like to submit that we could also consider the option of moving out from the premises provided we and our vendors are compensated for the cost of the buildings, sheds on the premises and expenses incurred in developing the infrastructure which remains on the premises................" Thus, it is an undisputed fact that even once the cost of acquisition was borne by WBIDC by way of raising loan from banks, TML did not start operations and held on to the possession of the land. It did not engage in any other manufacturing activity either. Subsequently, TML also removed the machinery from the concerned plant and shifted the same to the state of Gujarat and the lands in question have since been resumed by WBIDC. 67. In view of the foregoing reasons, Point Nos. 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the land owners/cultivators. Answer to Point Nos. 3, 4 and 5 68. From a perusal of the materials on record and original acquisition files, it is evident that a large number of objections were filed by the land owners before the notification was issued under Section 4 of the L.A. Act. The same were not considered properly under Section 5-A (2) of the L.A. Act. Notices were issued to the objectors individually but the same could not be served upon the owners/cultivators of the proposed lands to be acquired. It is further mentioned in the record that the announcements were made through loudspeakers and by publications in the newspapers. It has been submitted by Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the State of West Bengal that once a decision was taken to serve the land owners/cultivators individually then it should have been ensured by the Land Acquisition Collector that the notices were so served. However, the fact that the same was not done is evident from a perusal of the acquisition files maintained by the State Government. Even though the land owners/cultivators did not appear before the Land Acquisition Collector, the objections filed by them ought to have been considered objectively by him as required under Section 5-A (2) of the L.A. Act. Additionally, seven objections were filed under Section 5-A itself and some of the objections pertained to persons who were already running industrial units. The names of the objectors are as follows: "1. Kuldip Maity of Beraberi, P.S. Singur;2. Subir Kumar Pal, Director of M/s Shree Bhumi Steel Pvt. Ltd., P.S. Singur;3. M/s. Shanti Ceramics Pvt. Ltd., P.S. Singur;4. Prashanta Kumar Jana, Vill-Habaspota, Singur;5. M/s. Ajit Services Station on behalf of Tapan Kumar Bera, Advocate;6. M/s. Shree Padma Sagar Exports Pvt. Ltd. of Singherbheri, P.S. Singur" 69. Some of these objectors were not given the opportunity to be heard as required under Section 5-A (2) of the L.A. Act. The same ought to have been given to them as required both under the statutory provisions of the L.A. Act as well as the principles of natural justice, as the acquisition of lands of the objectors would entail a serious civil consequence. In the case of Mandir Shri Sita Ramji v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, (1975) 4 SCC 298 a Constitution Bench of this Court has held that it is the mandatory duty cast upon the Collector to follow the provision of Section 5-A (2) of the L.A. Act as under: "5. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on the basis that the appellant had no opportunity of being heard by the Collector under Section 5-A. The duty to afford such an opportunity is mandatory. A decision by the Government on the objection, when the Collector afforded no opportunity of being heard to the objector, would not be proper. The power to hear the objection under Section 5-A is that of the Collector and not of the appropriate Government. It is no doubt true that the recommendation of the Land Acquisition Collector is not binding on the Government. The Government may choose either to accept the recommendation or to reject it; but the requirement of the section is that when a persons property is proposed to be acquired, he must be given an opportunity to show cause against it. Merely because the Government may not choose to accept the recommendation of the Land Acquisition Collector, even when he makes one, it cannot be said that he need not make the recommendation at all but leave it to the Government to decide the matter. In other words, the fact that the Collector is not the authority to decide the objection does not exonerate him from his duty to hear the objector on the objection and make the recommendation."(emphasis laid by this Court) 70. In the case of Babu Ram v. State of Haryana, (2009) 10 SCC 115 this Court observed as under: "30. As indicated hereinabove in the various cases cited by Mr. Pradip Ghosh and, in particular, the decision in Krishnan Lal Arneja case, in which reference has been made to the observations made by this Court in Om Prakash case, it has been emphasized that a right under Section 5-A is not merely statutory but also has the flavour of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. Such observations had been made in reference to an observation made in the earlier decision in Gurdial Singh case and keeping in mind the fact that right to property was no longer a fundamental right, an observation was made that even if the right to property was no longer a fundamental right, the observations relating to Article 14 would continue to apply in full force with regard to Section 5-A of the L.A. Act."(emphasis laid by this Court) From a perusal of the proceedings before the Collector, which are made available to this Court, it becomes clear that the same have been rejected without assigning any clear reasons or application of mind. 71. Thus, the report of the Collector is not a valid report in the eyes of law. The State Government has mechanically accepted the same without application of mind independently before issuing notification under Section 6 of the L.A. Act declaring that the lands are required for establishment of automobile industry by TML. Therefore, the point nos. 3, 4 and 5 are answered against the State Government and in favour of the land owners/cultivators. Answer to Point Nos. 6, 7 and 8 72. After issuing the notifications under Section 6 of the L.A. Act declaring that the lands have been acquired for the purpose of industrial development, a statutory duty is cast upon the Collector to issue notice to the land owners/cultivators, as required under Section 9 of the L.A. Act, to determine the market value of the acquired land and award compensation as required under Section 11 of the L.A. Act which is mandatory for taking possession of the land by the State Government.73. As can be seen from material on record, no individual notices were served upon the land owners/cultivators. A joint inquiry appears to have been conducted by the Land Acquisition Collector without giving them an adequate opportunity to establish their claim for determination of reasonable compensation for acquisition of lands by presenting true and correct market value of the lands. The determination of market value of lands by clubbing a number of cases together and passing a composite award is no award in the eyes of law. The inquiry, as contemplated under Section 11 of the L.A. Act, is a quasi judicial exercise of power on the part of the Collector in awarding just and reasonable compensation to the landowners/cultivators. That has not been done in the instant case. Further, the proviso to Section 11(1) of the L.A. Act provides that no award shall be made by the collector without the previous approval of either the appropriate government or such officer authorised by it for the above purpose. It was also brought to the notice of this Court that supplementary awards were also passed which is not legally permissible in law. For non-compliance of the above provisions of the L.A. Act, the composite awards are vitiated in law and therefore, the same are also liable to be quashed.74. Accordingly, the point nos. 6, 7 and 8 are answered in favour of the land owners. ORDER

Decision:
1[ds]The learned senior counsel submit that even before the Supreme Court, the Stateof West Bengalhas stated in its counter affidavit that establishing a new industry is the public purpose as envisaged under Section 3(f) of the L.A. Act and that in the instant case, it was the state government which had acquired the lands in favour of WBIDC for theng its industrialization policy in the State6. The learned senior counsel further submits that in the instant case, having regard to the nature of acquisition of lands made by the previous Government, the lands were acquired by the State Government ints eminent domain power without following the statutory provisions contained in Sections 3(f), 4 and 6 of the L.A. Act as well as Part VII of the L.A. Act. It is submitted that the previous government of the state has violated statutory provisions of the L.A. Act in acquiring the vast extent of lands having immense agricultural potential, thus depriving the agricultural occupation of a largend owners/ cultivators, thereby depriving them of their constitutional and fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the acquisition of the lands in the instant case has been made at the instance of TML. Therefore, the previous Government has violated the law in acquiring the lands. It is submitted that the stand of the present government becomes clear from the fact that it enacted the Singur Act, 2011, the constitutional validity of which has been challenged by TML by way of filing petitions, which were allowed by the High Court, against which judgment, the State Government filed SLPs which are currently pending before this Court. Therefore, the State Government has changed its stand in not justifying the acquisition proceedings.47. We are unable to agree with the contentions advanced by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of TML. While it is true that rule of law cannot be sacrificed for the sake of furthering political agendas, it is also a well established position of law that a stand taken by the state government can be changed subsequently if there is material on record to show that the earlier action of the acquisition of lands by the State Government was illegal or suffers from legal malafides or colourable8. Further, in any case, it is also well settled position of law that this Court is not bound by affidavits and counter affidavits filed by the parties. Ints power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, this Court can examine the material on record in order to determine whether the action of the previous state government in acquiring the lands in the instant case was in accordance with law or not.The above said preliminary objection, as has been raised by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of TML is thus, not accepted. We now proceed to decide the matter on merits.A perusal of the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act extracted supra clearly shows that the proposed lands in the notification are needed for the setting up of the Tata Small Car project in mouza Berabery, P.S. Singur, District Hooghly.54. The Cabinet Memo dated 30.05.2006, extracted supra, at Serial No. 3 mentioned acquisition of lands measuring 1053 acres by WBIDC for theof setting upof the Tata Motors `Small Car Project in the StateThe said Cabinet Memo received the approval of the Chief Minister on 05.06.2006 after which the notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act was published in the official gazette.55. As far as the proposal is concerned, there is nothing on record to indicate that WBIDC made such requisition to the State Government giving its proposal for acquisition of the proposed lands mentioned in the notification issued under Section 4 of the L.A. Act, which are required for `public purpose as defined under Section 3(f) (iii) of the L.A. Act, which enables the WBIDC to give requisition for acquiring the lands in its favour for the planned development of land out of the public funds in pursuance of any scheme or policy of Government. As is evident from the Notifications issued under the L.A. Act and from the cabinet memo, there is no mention about such requisition being made by the Corporation to the State Government regarding the proposed lands being required for acquisition in favour of WBIDC for planned development of land in pursuance of any scheme or policy of the Government. Even from a perusal of the letter dated 29.08.2006, written by the Joint Secretary, Land and Land Reforms Department, Governmentit becomes clear that the state government did not apply its mind while considering the need of the land and merely followed the document on which the Collector had signed.Even if the argument advanced on behalf of TML were to be accepted, that it was the policy of the state government to generate employment and increase socio economic development in the State, the relevant policy documents are not forthcoming in the original acquisition files which were made available for this Court. Thus, by no stretch of imagination can the acquisition of lands in the instant case beo be at theinstance of WBIDC, or for the fulfilment of some scheme of the Corporation or the State Government. Thus, it cannot be said to attract Section 3(f)(iii), (iv) or (vi) either. On the contrary, what is on record is the minutes of meetings between the representatives of the West Bengal Government and TML dated 17.03.2006, which state that TML is interested in setting up a `special category project in the State to manufacture 2,50,000 units for its `Small Car Project. As per the project requirement mentioned in the letter written by Deputy General Manager TML to the Principal Secretary, Commerce & Industries Department, Governmentof West Bengaldated 19.01.2006, 400 acres of land were required for setting up of the factory, 200 acres for vendor park and 100 acres for township. The said letter was forwarded by the Commerce and Industries Department to the Principal Secretary, Land and Land Reforms Department on 24.01.2006 and the Financeir consideration and seeking their views in this regard. It is undisputed fact that the State Government has not deposited the public money towards the cost of acquisition of land to initiate the acquisition proceedings to show that the acquisition of lands is for public purpose which is an essential requirement under the provision of Section 6 of the L.A. Act. As can be seen, the notification issued under Section 6 of the L.A. Act merely provides that the land is needed for the setting up of the Tata Small Car project, which is a public purpose under the L.A. Act.From a perusal of both the statutory provisions of the L.A. Act as well as the case law on the subject referred to supra upon which strong reliance has been rightly placed by the learned senior counsel on behalf of the owners/cultivators and State Government, it becomes clear that the state government can acquire land under the public purpose clauses (iv) and (vii) of the Act for industrial estates, housing colonies and economic parks/zones even where the type of industry has been identified. So, an acquisition made for an industrial estate of a particular type of industry like small cars is permissible under the `public purpose for theof the L.A. Actunder the above clauses of Section 3 (f) of the Act. Before land could be acquired, the procedure consistent with the statutory provisions of law must be followed mandatorily. There is nothing in law which would support the acquisition of land for a particular Company under theic purpose, rendering the exception provided under Section 3(f)(viii)of the L.A. Act3. In this day and age of fast paced development, it is completely understandable for the state government to want to acquire lands to set up industrial units. What, however, cannot be lost sight of is the fact that when the brunt of this `development is borne by the weakest sections of the society, more so, poor agricultural workers who have no means of raising a voice against the action of the mighty state government, as is the case in the instant fact situation, it is the onerous duty of the state Government to ensure that the mandatory procedure laid down under the L.A. Act and the Rules framed there under are followed scrupulously otherwise the acquisition proceedings will be rendered void ab initio in law. Compliance with the provisionsof the L.A. Actcannot be treated as any by the State Government, as that would be akin to handing over the eminent domainte to the executive, which cannot be permitted in a democratic country which isbe governed by the4. In the instant case, what makes the acquisition proceedings perverse is not the fact that the lands were needed for setting up of an automobile industry, which would help to generate employment as well as promote socio economic development in the State, but what makes the acquisition proceedings perverse is that the proper procedure as laid down under Part VIIof the L.A. Actread with Rules was not followed by the State Government. The acquisition of land for and at the instance of the company was sought to be disguised as acquisition of land for `public purpose in order to circumvent compliance with the mandatory provisions of Part VIIof the L.A.This action of the State Government is grossly perverse and illegal and void ab initio in law and such anof power bythe state government for acquisition of lands cannot be allowed under any circumstance. If such acquisitions of lands are permitted, it would render entire Part VIIof the L.A.as nugatory and redundant, as then virtually every acquisition of land in favour of a company could be justified as one for a `public purpose on the ground that the setting up of industry would generate employment and promote socio economic development in the State. Surely, that could not have been the intention of the legislature in providing the provisions of Part VII read with 3 (f)of the L.A.From a perusal of the materials on record from the original files, the relevant extracts from the letters addressed by TML to the State Governmentof West Bengaland Cabinet notes which have been extracted and discussed supra, it becomes clear that in the instant case, the lands in question were acquired by the State Government for a particular Company (TML), at the instance of that Company. Further, the exact location and site of the land was also identified by TML. Even the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6of the L.A.clearly state that the land in question was being acquiredfor the `Small CarIn view of the foregoing reasons, by no stretch of imagination can such an acquisition of lands beone for `public purpose and not for a company. If the acquisition of lands in the instant case does not amount to one for the company, I do not know what would.65. In view of the aforesaid categorical findings recorded by me based on the materials on record, including cabinet memo, minutes of meetings between representatives of the state government and TML as well as the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6of the L.A.1984, it is clear that the acquisition of lands in the instant case is for the Company (TML). Admittedly, the procedure for acquisition as contemplated under Sections 39, 40 and 41 of Part VIIof the L.A.read with Rules 3, 4 and 5 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 has not been followed, as the acquisition was sought to be guised as one for `public purpose under Sections 3(f) (iii), (iv) and (vii)of the L.A.The acquisition of land in the instant case in favour of the Company is thus, improper for not following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Part VIIof the L.A.and Rules and therefore the acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed.66. Further, even after the lands were acquired in its favour, TML could not start operations in accordance with the terms of the lease deed. The same becomes clear from a perusal of the letter dated 28.09.2010 written by the Managing Director, India Operations of TML to the Managing Director ofIn view of the foregoing reasons, Point Nos. 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the land owners/cultivators.From a perusal of the materials on record and original acquisition files, it is evident that a largens were filed by the land owners before the notification was issued under Section 4of the L.A.Act. The samewere not considered properly under Section. Notices were issued to the objectors individually but the same could not be served upon the owners/cultivators of the proposed lands to be acquired. It is further mentioned in the record that the announcements were made through loudspeakers and by publications in the newspapers. It has been submitted by Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Stateof West Bengalthat once a decision was taken to serve the land owners/cultivators individually then it should have been ensured by the Land Acquisition Collector that the notices were so served. However, the fact that the same was not done is evident from a perusal of the acquisition files maintained by the State Government.Thus, the report of the Collector is not a valid report in the eyes of law. The State Government has mechanically accepted the same without application of mind independently before issuing notification under Section 6of the L.A.declaring that the lands are required for establishment of automobile industry by TML. Therefore, the point nos. 3, 4 and 5 are answered against the State Government and in favour of the land owners/cultivators.After issuing the notifications under Section 6of the L.A.declaring that the lands have been acquired for theal development, a statutory duty is cast upon the Collector to issue notice to the land owners/cultivators, as required under Section 9of the L.A.to determine the market value of the acquired land and award compensation as required under Section 11of the L.A.for taking possessionof the land by the State Government.73. As can be seen from material on record, no individual notices were served upon the land owners/cultivators. A joint inquiry appears to have been conducted by the Land Acquisition Collector without giving them an adequate opportunity to establish their claim for determination of reasonable compensation for acquisition of lands by presenting true and correct market value of the lands. The determination of market value of lands by clubbing aes together and passing a composite award is no award in the eyes of law. The inquiry, as contemplated under Section 11of the L.A.is a quasi judicialer on the part of the Collector in awarding just and reasonable compensation to the landowners/cultivators. That has not been done in the instant case. Further, the proviso to Section 11(1)of the L.A.Act provides thatno award shall be made by the collector without the previous approval of either the appropriate government or such officer authorised by it for the above purpose. It was also brought to the notice of this Court that supplementary awards were also passed which is not legally permissible in law. Forof the above provisionsof the L.A.the composite awards are vitiated in law and therefore, the same are also liable to be quashed.74. Accordingly, the point nos. 6, 7 and 8 are answered in favour of the land owners.