Extraordinary Judicial Intervention Not Warranted When Parties Possess Adequate Means To Vindicate Their Rights: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court said that the relief conceived to prevent impoverishment among the disadvantaged cannot extend to commercial enterprises with financial capacity and institutional sophistication.
Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court remarked that extraordinary judicial intervention is warranted when systemic barriers prevent certain classes from accessing ordinary remedies, not when parties possess adequate means to vindicate their rights.
The Court remarked thus in a Civil Appeal preferred by the State of West Bengal against the Judgment of the Calcutta High Court, which upheld the Single Judge’s Order directing the State to restore 28 bighas of land to a company.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed, “By grounding relief in structural incapacity rather than extending automatic restoration to all affected parties, this Court prevented undermining finality in land acquisition proceedings while ensuring protection for the genuinely defenceless. Extraordinary judicial intervention is warranted when systemic barriers prevent certain classes from accessing ordinary remedies, not when parties possess adequate means to vindicate their rights.”
The Bench added that the relief conceived to prevent impoverishment among the disadvantaged cannot extend to commercial enterprises with financial capacity and institutional sophistication.
Senior Advocates Harin P Rawal and Ashok Kumar Panda appeared on behalf of the Appellants, while Senior Advocate Sridhar Potaraju appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
Facts of the Case
The controversy in this case arose in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s Judgment in Kedar Nath Yadav v. State of West Bengal (2016), whereby the land acquisition proceedings for establishing the manufacturing plant of TATA Motors’ then flagship car ‘NANO’ were quashed. In 2006, pursuant to TATA Motors’ decision to establish this facility in Singur, Hooghly District, West Bengal, the Appellants had initiated acquisition spanning over 1000 acres (Singer Project).
The acquisition encompassed agricultural lands and lands converted for non-agricultural purposes. The Appeal before the Court was related to the restoration of the subject land, which formed part of the acquisition. The High Court had accorded restoration in favour of the Respondent-M/s Santi Ceramics Pvt. Limited on ground of parity with cultivators to whom such a relief was granted by the Apex Court in Kedar Nath Yadav case.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court in the above context of the case, held, “Respondent No.1 falls squarely outside the protective framework envisaged by this Court. Unlike marginal farmers facing potential destitution from loss of their sole livelihood, Respondent No. 1 operated a 60,000 square feet manufacturing facility employing over 100 workers since 2003, having purchased and converted agricultural land for commercial purposes.”
The Court said that the reasoning in Kedar Nath Yadav case does not enure to the benefit of the Respondent and the restoration remedy was conceived for disadvantaged farming communities, not as general restitution for all affected parties.
“Beyond this distinction, we are constrained to add that even the established procedural principles preclude Respondent No.1’s claim. Orders quashing acquisition proceedings may operate either in personam or in rem. Where the Court quashes acquisition on grounds personal to individual objectors—such as vitiated consideration of their specific objections under Section 5-A—the relief operates in personam and benefits only those parties who contested the matter before judicial forums. On the other hand, where the Court declares the entire process void ab initio on grounds going to the root of acquisition—the relief operates in rem”, it explained.
The Court noted that the benefits of quashing do not accrue to persons who were not parties unless the Court has struck down the entire acquisition on fundamental grounds applicable to all.
“It is trite law that in the event objections are not pursued through litigation, the notification becomes conclusive proof of waiver. … Once the proceedings conclude in the award and possession is taken without challenge, the Court would not entertain any belated grievance from the interested person”, it reiterated.
The Court, therefore, held that the Respondent cannot claim the benefit of the Court's directions in Kedar Nath Yadav case and having accepted monetary settlement without challenge and remained passive during litigation spanning several years, it cannot now seek benefits from relief secured by others.
“The confluence of its commercial status, nature of the relief, and the practical impossibility of restoration due to intervening modifications collectively defeats this claim”, it added.
Conclusion and Directions
The Court further remarked that permitting industrial entities to claim restoration benefits from litigation they chose not to pursue would establish an undesirable precedent and such an approach would incentivize strategic inaction, encouraging parties to remain dormant during protracted litigation only to emerge as claimants after favourable outcomes are secured by others.
“This would undermine both the targeted nature of remedial relief and the fundamental principle that legal benefits flow from active pursuit of remedies, not passive opportunism”, it added.
Considering that the Respondent has claimed to have had standing structures on the subject land at the time of acquisition, the Court issued the following directions –
i) Respondent is permitted to remove any remaining structures, plant, and machinery from the subject land within three months, in the presence of officials designated by the District Magistrate, Hooghly; or
ii) Alternatively, Respondent may request the Appellants to put the structures, machinery and other movable and immovable articles belonging to it for public auction. In such event, Respondent shall be entitled to the auction proceeds after deducting expenses incurred on the auction process. It shall not then claim any compensation from Appellants.
iii) The LAC shall calculate the compensation for structures after deducting the salvage value of materials removed by Respondent from the compensation already paid for such structures. However, recovery of any excess payment made to Respondent shall not be effected by the Appellants.
iv) Since Respondent was granted possession of the subject land pursuant to the impugned Judgment which has been set aside, the Appellants shall carry out fresh demarcation to identify the precise boundaries of the acquired area. Thereafter, the Appellants shall resume possession of the subject land, subject to compliance with the other directions.
v) The assessment exercise under clauses (ii), (iii) & (iv) shall be completed within four months.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal and set aside the impugned Judgment.
Cause Title- The State of West Bengal and Others v. M/s Santi Ceramics Pvt. Limited and Another (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1222)
