In a significant ruling that revisits the long-running Singur land controversy, the Supreme Court on Monday set aside a Calcutta High Court order that had directed the West Bengal government to restore 28 bighas of land to M/s Santi Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. The bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi clarified that the relief granted in Kedar Nath Yadav v. State of West Bengal-which had nullified the Tata Nano land acquisition-was meant for poor cultivators, not industrial entities.
Background
The dispute dates back to 2006, when the State of West Bengal acquired over 1000 acres in Singur, Hooghly, to set up Tata Motors’ ambitious Nano plant. Among those affected was Santi Ceramics, a small industrial manufacturer that had purchased and converted its land for factory use years earlier.
Although the company accepted compensation of ₹14.54 crore for the land and structures, it resurfaced a decade later-after the Supreme Court quashed the entire acquisition in Kedar Nath Yadav (2016)-seeking restoration of its factory premises. The Calcutta High Court granted that request, observing that “landowners” included both cultivators and business entities. The State appealed to the Supreme Court.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court bench disagreed sharply with the High Court’s interpretation. Justice Surya Kant noted that the 2016 Kedar Nath Yadav ruling was “specifically intended to protect the weakest sections of society-poor agricultural workers-who lacked resources to challenge the might of the State.”
“The remedial framework was anchored in social justice,” the bench observed. “It cannot be stretched to cover commercial enterprises possessing institutional access and financial capacity.”
The Court stressed that Santi Ceramics had accepted compensation without protest in 2006 and chose to remain silent for ten years. By doing so, it had “acquiesced to the acquisition process.” The judges also pointed out that granting such relief to industries could “open floodgates” for other commercial entities seeking similar claims, thereby diluting the very spirit of the earlier Singur judgment.
Furthermore, the bench explained that the Kedar Nath decision operated in favour of cultivators represented through public interest litigation, not for those who neither joined nor pursued legal remedies. “Judicial benefits flow from active pursuit of remedies, not passive opportunism,” Justice Kant remarked.
Decision
Allowing the State’s appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the Calcutta High Court’s orders of 2017 and 2018. The justices ruled that Santi Ceramics was not entitled to land restoration but permitted the company to remove any remaining machinery or structures within three months. Alternatively, it may request a public auction of those assets and collect the proceeds after deducting auction expenses.
The Court directed the District Magistrate, Hooghly, to supervise the process and complete all related formalities within four months. “Permitting industrial entities to claim restoration benefits from litigation they chose not to pursue would establish an undesirable precedent,” the bench concluded.
With this, the long-contested chapter over industrial versus agricultural rights in Singur has once again found judicial closure-this time firmly in favour of the State.
Case Title: The State of West Bengal & Others v. M/s Santi Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. & Another
Case Type: Civil Appeal (arising out of SLP (C) No. 33701/2018)
Date of Judgment: October 13, 2025