41% land acquired in Singur sans consent

Govt Admits Farmers Agreed To Hand Over Remaining 586 Acres Only On
The Day The Plot Was Fenced Up

Falguni Banerjee | TNN

[Page 17, Mumbai edition, 16 12 2006]

Kolkata: The Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee government has published a status
report on land acquisition in Singur saying that out of a total 997.11 acres of land,
the government got prior consent from farmers for 586 acres only on the day it
fenced up the land. Another 34 acre is vested land.
The government figures reveal that the administration didn't have consent for
acquiring 411.11 acres which constitutes 41.22% of the land acquired – a
plausible ground for unrest among peasants and the government's clamping of
Section 144 of the CrPC in Singur.
The fact has given new twist to the Singur controversy since the CM and his
ministerial colleagues have till date ignored the "minimal dissent'' among the
landowners. It only came to light after the opposition took up the case and social
activists Medha Patkar, Arundhati Roy threw their weight behind the landlosers.
Even as state government officials on Friday tried to downplay the fact, as well
within the powers of the state, this piece of information that was denied to rights
bodies earlier, has created a flutter among the Left.
Hooghly DM Vinod Kumar, however, disputed the pre-consent award figures.
"As far as I know, we have got consent for 950 acres of land. Even today, some
farmers gave consent to the acquisition. The figures are going up everyday,'' said
Kumar.
And Kumar did this without even invoking the special powers of the collector
as provided under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Going by what Kumar said, the
government got consent from the landowners for another 370 acres days within
the area was brought under Section 144.
The sudden spurt in giving consent by the farmers seems intriguing because
the administration has been negotiating with political parties and panchayats at
various levels since May, but without much success. The status report reveals
that nine meetings were held at the DM's bungalow in the threemonth period
between the first meeting held on May 27 and the ninth meeting on September
21, with no progress. Later in mid-September, the meeting venue was shifted to
Kolkata but nothing transpired in the meet.
In fact, Dhudh Kumar Dhara, a member of the Gopalnagar gram panchayat,
submitted to the three-member panel led by Medha Patkar that the district
administration didn't disclose the details of the project to the panchayat
members. "It is clear that there are no details of the project, its cost and benefits,
provided also to the gram panchayat and consent of the gram panchayat is also
not sought, as reported to our panel for public hearing held at Gopalnagar held
on October 27, 2006,'' Patkar said.
Arunava Ghosh, a lawyer, said, "In reply to my petition at the Calcutta high
court under the RTI Act, the government replied that the West Bengal Industrial
Development Corporation has requisitioned for the land and there was no
mention of the Tata project. But this shouldn't have been the case. Because the
WBIDC has taken loans from the West Bengal Finance Corporation, a
government organisation, and the people have the right to know where his
money is being spent and the details thereof,'' Ghosh said.