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)
|