Supreme Court upholds State’s decision to take back 395 acres in Uttarpara unused by Hindustan Motors. Land to be repurposed for Titagarh Rail’s coach manufacturing plant, boosting public interest.
New Delhi: Today, on July 16, the Supreme Court of India upheld the decision of the West Bengal government to take back over 395 acres of land that was earlier allotted to Hindustan Motors Limited in Uttarpara, Hooghly district.
This land had been used to house the iconic Ambassador car manufacturing plant. The legal case marks the end of a long-standing dispute over the unused industrial land.
A Bench consisting of Justices BV Nagarathna and KV Viswanathan dismissed the petition filed by Hindustan Motors, which had challenged a May 2025 judgment of the Calcutta High Court. That earlier judgment had upheld the State government’s right to reclaim the unused land.
The Supreme Court clearly stated that it found no merit in Hindustan Motors’ arguments and refused to interfere with the reasoning given by the High Court.
The Court said that it was satisfied with the High Court’s conclusion, which had relied on the fact that the land had not been used for industrial purposes for several decades.
As per the State government, the company had not made any efforts to utilise the land for a long period, and therefore, the land should be returned to the State for public use and development.
The legal battle began when the West Bengal government issued a resumption order under Section 6(3) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act. This order was based on the argument that the land had not been used for a long time.
The order was first upheld by the West Bengal Land Tribunal, and later by the Calcutta High Court in May 2025. The Supreme Court has now confirmed the legality of that decision, marking the final stage of the legal process.
Importantly, the Supreme Court also agreed with the High Court’s view on the constitutional validity of Explanation II to the proviso to Section 6(3) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act.
This provision was the legal basis for the State’s decision to take back the land. The Court said it found “no infirmity” in the High Court’s interpretation and therefore saw no reason to interfere with it.
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for Hindustan Motors, argued before the Supreme Court that the government’s resumption order was “arbitrary” and unfair.
He also said that even though the land was currently not being used, it was still part of the company’s “industrial estate.”
However, the Supreme Court did not agree with this argument and said it would not disturb the earlier findings of the Land Tribunal and the High Court, which had both observed that the land had remained unused for a significant period.
The Court observed that the government’s action was in the larger “public interest” and justified the resumption as necessary to ensure productive use of industrial land.
The decision of the Supreme Court comes at a time when the West Bengal government is focusing on putting unused industrial land to better use. Just four days before the Supreme Court’s verdict, the State government had announced the lease of 40 acres out of the 395-acre parcel to Titagarh Rail Systems.
This land will be used by Titagarh to set up a modern coach manufacturing facility in Uttarpara. The State has claimed that the new facility will expand Titagarh’s existing operations and will become
“the largest such plant in Asia outside China.”
The State government was represented in the Supreme Court by a high-profile legal team, including Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Rakesh Dwivedi, and Shadan Farasat, along with a legal team from the law firm Fox & Mandal led by Debanjan Mandal and Kunal Vajani.
ALSO READ: Jama Masjid Whitewashing Begins in Sambhal After High Court Nod – Security Tightened
On the other side, Hindustan Motors was represented by Senior Advocate Shyam Divan and advocate Divyanshu Kumar Srivastava.
Titagarh Rail Systems, which will benefit from the resumed land, was represented by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi and advocate Mahesh Agarwal.
Case Title:
Hindustan Motors Limited & Anr. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Suo Moto
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
