Economic Highlights

New Delhi, 2 December 2011

Land Acquisition Bill

ANTI-FARMER & ANTI-POOR

By Shivaji Sarkar

As the nation is swamped under the FDI multi-brand retail debate, the significant proposed land acquisition, rehabilitation and resettlement (LARR) bill is getting completely ignored. Worse, when it is anti-farmer and anti-poor step with predatory teeth. In its entirety it may be more retrograde as together with the FDI multi-brand retail, it opens up the nation to greedy moves of the multi-national corporate.

The bill is a clever ploy that not only dispossesses farmers of their land but is aimed at silencing the voice of this most vociferous community. Some observers are even harshly terming it as a move to strike at very root of Indian sovereignty. Land right is natural, says Katyayana Smriti. It may be noted that smritis are ancient laws and modern Indian jurisprudence draws much of its sustenance from these and customs. The Katyayana Smriti says land belongs to individual, particularly the tiller, explains eminent Justice Rama Joisi. Many problems arise from the change in the pattern of land possession and the Indian civil and criminal courts reveal that they have the maximum number of cases related to land.

The new bill proposes to upset that basic. In many ways it is more anti-farmer than its predecessor, the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, enacted for serving the British imperial purposes. That law gave very limited rights to the private sector for acquisitions for constructing houses for workers and factories. But the new law tends to change all this. 

The Bill has accentuated the debate between industrial and infrastructural projects and economic activity. It is based on the premise that since agriculture is not productive, contributes very low to the GDP growth the activities need to shift to areas which could contribute higher. In such a changing economic and cultural scenario, acquisition of the land is definitely an issue. However, it must be seen with the more important aspects of food security, proper rehabilitation and resettlement of the oustees.

There is a nagging fear that depriving farmers of land and vesting it with corporate would add to the clout of the latter. There is a also the grave danger of being dictated by the powerful corporate as it has happened during the past over 200 years in Europe and the US.

Since the 1894 Land Acquisition Act, the industrial sector has acquired far more land than it was necessary. It paid their houses great dividends. For example, the Mumbai textile mills closed down in the 70s and its owners are said to have made a fortune on it. Thus, the bill should instead have proposed formation of land bank, which sadly is being avoided fearing stiff corporate opposition.

The bill proposes four times higher compensation for title holders. But land ownership is beyond the title holding and a very complex issue itself.  Thus, there would be many who would be land owners but possibly are not title holders. In Nandigram and Singur, West Bengal, it was stated, that each small land holding sustained 50 to 100 persons while the title was vested in one or two persons. Therefore, we find that compensation would be given only to two persons whereas it would have displaced 48 others. Worse, they would neither be resettled nor be rehabilitated.

Let us first discuss the food security. The farm sector has lost over 27 lakh hectare area of land to different kind of activities during 2007-2010, according to Mid-Year Analysis of 2010. Since 1980, millions of hectare has been lost. Now with the so called “benevolent” bill more is to be lost for causes other than food production – road, malls, markets, housing, urbanisation, industrialisation or SEZ. None of this benefits the farmers. Each of the activities would be held on his land, but he would only be a spectator and not a participant in the entire process.

The issues of Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) are not as easy as the bill tries to state. There are many grey areas. The definition of the infrastructure project given in Sec 2 N and Public purpose (Sec 2 Y) does not cover projects related to rural economy or development. Further, it appears that Sec 1 A (2) relating to R&R conceals many aspects. The R&R is an obligation for companies acquiring 100 acre or more land. In some cases, obligations are there for acquiring 50 acre of land. It is not clear if it would be applicable to any other private entity or NGO. What would happen, if a company acquires land in two segments of 49 acre? Would the law for RR apply? Most likely not.

Should R&R remain the responsibility of the Government? In other words, while benefits would be appropriated by private entities, R&R would be the responsibility of the society. The R&R has always remained a problem in big projects be it Bhakra, Maithan-DVC, Hirakund, Narmada to Tehri. The benefit even of solace to farmers and at 100 or 200 per cent for R&R looks restorative. It must be remembered it does not extend to every resident of the area. Legalities involved are complex and even skewed.

Yes, the bill promises a share in the enterprise. But, if they want the share, it is only up to 25 per cent and this is further deducted from their compensation. The investor group again gets the benefits. Additionally, the bill is too soft on corporate, both public and private. The requirement that private companies will get the consent of 80 per cent of the project-affected people (cl.3(2a) or 80 per cent of the  families (cl8(4) is a window dressing. The recent Allahabad High Court judgements on Noida acquisitions have shown how the builders could manage the consent.

The LARR Bill has an “urgency clause” whereby the entire acquisition, social investigation and R&R provisions may be bypassed altogether (cl 38 (4). It provides for higher compensation, but it not so in reality. The government also has reserved powers to undo the entire act. It is even otherwise not applicable to 16 statutes covering highways, petroleum, SEZ and others to which the LARR does not apply (Sec 98 and IV Schedule.)

The bill broadly says that LARR would be in addition to but not override other laws (cl 97). In conflict, every other law would override. In many other cases as per clauses 98 and 99 all the schedules dealing with acquisitions, R&R could disappear with the stroke of an executive order. In some cases, it provides for parliamentary sanction, but often it does so with a voice vote without a debate or even a scrutiny.

The bill is also not clear about the common gram sabha or panchayat land used for many social purposes, including grazing of the cattle. If this common land is acquired, who would get the compensation? Would it be distributed equally to all land holders and would this be possible? Or would the strongest man in the area – a sarpanch, an MP or MLA or a mafia – grab it up?

Let us learn from the US. It remains powerful despite recession because agriculture still has a firm base in agriculture. Let us empower the farmers and not create additional and untold miseries for the nation.---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)