Events & Issues

New Delhi, 8 November 2010

Land Acquisition Bill

DON’T DEPRIVE FARMERS & TRIBALS

By Dhurjati Mukherjee

There has been much discussion and debate over land acquisition which has over the years favoured the rich and the powerful. Violent protests have taken place over forcefully taking over land for setting up industries or “pubic purposes”, from time to time, in various parts of the country.  Clearly, the whole gamut of land acquisition reveals that poor farmers, tribals and others have not only been forced to give up land but the money offered is below market rates and insufficient to compensate their loss.

Be it UP, Orissa, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu or West Bengal there have been serious problems in acquiring land for projects like building roads, steel plant, airport or nuclear power plant. Recall, Mahatma Gandhi’s words in the 1930’s whereby in reference to the Tata’s he pointed out: “The disposed never got the exact equivalent (of the land taken).  What is the value of all boons that the Tata scheme claims to confer upon India if it is to be at the expense of even one poor man? I suggest to the custodians of the great name that they would more truly advance India’s interest if they will defer to the wishes of their weak and helpless countrymen”.

Importantly, it is in this context that the amendment Bill of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 gains credence. Of how this will ensure proper rehabilitation for the dispossessed. Specially, after violent protests erupted in UP subsequent to the State Government bringing its liberal land policy for the Yamuna Expressway. Resulting in the Union Rural Development Ministry mulling over adding ‘annuity’ to the pending R & R Bill. Wherein, the farmers would get annuity (fixed amount) periodically after their land is acquired. This would be in addition to the compensation they got for their land.

Annuity per se is expected to sweeten the compensation in R & R Bill which might not be binding on States but only meant as a guideline on the “acceptance package”. With UP and Haryana adopting a “good compensation with annuity” in their R & R policies, the Centre too would be forced to adopt this.

The proposal comes in the wake of a serious debate following Mamata’s Trinamool Congress dissatisfaction with the proposals made in the draft. Given that she had spearheaded the anti-acquisition movement in Singur and Nandigram. Also, the Aligarh face-off between farmers saw the Opposition argue that the Centre’s failure to make necessary amendments was responsible for States like UP acquiring land for private players with impunity.

Undoubtedly, one cannot absolve the Government of its responsibility as it sat pretty for years when land acquisition protests echoed in most parts of the country. Recently, the Prime Minister assured a delegation led by Rahul Gandhi that the Bill would be brought in the winter session of Parliament. Said he, “We cannot allow the transfer of land from the poor to the rich without giving the benefits to the poor.” Notwithstanding, finalizing it might take more time as a consensus had reached over many contentious issues.

The State’s role in acquisition could be further reduced from 30% in the Land Acquisition Amendment Bill to 10% to win over the Mamata.  Though her Party has submitted a proposal for scrapping of the old Act altogether. The Trinamool Chief is totally opposed to State Governments acquiring land on behalf of private companies. Instead, her proposal is that the Government should not act for private players and there should be clear definition of “public purpose” in the new law.

Further, social and environment impact studies should be completed before any project starts and the acquisition process begun only after the villagers’ consent. Particularly, as the old Act has no provision for obtaining the landowners’ consent prior to acquisition “for public purpose”. Section 5A of the Act only allows landowners to file objections, if any, within 30 days from the date of publication of the notice under Section 4. The objections would be heard but “the Government’s decision shall be final”.

Mamata has rightly demanded the compensation and rehabilitation be settled before the acquisition process starts. Also, eviction or acquisition should be preceded by a proper rehabilitation package which was reiterated at the Habitat-II conference at Istanbul, where India is a signatory recently.  

Another aspect of the problem is the need to examine whether agricultural land, which yields two crops per year, should be taken over. The case for such takeover has to be outlined whereby setting up industries cannot be reason. Thus, it is necessary to draw up a national plan with regard to conversion of agricultural land for industrial purposes, keeping in view rehabilitation and future source of livelihood of the displaced and their families.

If proper steps are not taken, the resultant effect in the not-too-distant future would lead to large-scale displacement, migration to urban areas in search of employment which, in turn, would increase social chaos and tension in society. In the circumstances, it is imperative that the amendment to the Land Acquisition Act be worked out in such a manner that the poor and tribals are not affected in any way.

Various surveys carried out over the years have found that most of those whose land has been taken away have landed in utter distress and many have perished due to hunger and poverty. It is vital that livelihood security should be the prime consideration in evolving a viable rehabilitation package so that loss of land is compensated in a way that the disposed can find a new lease of life.

In sum, land is a vital asset more so in India with its burgeoning populace growth along-with high population density. The judicious use of land is very necessary keeping in mind the interests of the BPL and economically weaker sections, which constitute over 45% of the people. Therefore, the question of land acquisition and rehabilitation needs to be examined by a panel of eminent experts comprising economists, planners, legal experts, sociologists and human rights activists before arriving at a judicious decision.  ----- INFA 

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)