LAND ACQUISITION BILL
1. It
is draconian, it is more sinister than British Raj, it is a land grab,
government is against farmers, modi is property dealer, farmers are being
bulldozed – all opposition parties are crying hoarse on the land acquisition
bill. What are the contentious issues, what are the differences from the UPA
bill and why the opposition is opposing. Let us see one by one.
2. Original
Land Acquistion Act. “The land acquisition act
of 1894 was created with the purpose of facilitating acquisition by the
government of privately held land for public purposes. The word "public
purpose", as defined in the act, refers to the acquisition of land for
constructing educational institutions or schemes such
as housing,
health
or slum
clearance, as well as for projects concerned with rural planning or
formation of sites. The word "government" refers to the central government if the purpose for
acquisition is for the union and for all other purposes it refers to the state government. It is
not necessary that all the acquisition has to be initiated by the government
alone. Local authorities, societies
registered under the societies registration act,
1860 and co-operative
societies established under the co-operative
societies act can also acquire the land for developmental activities
through the government.” - Sourse Wikipedia. The most relevant issue as far as the
land owner is concerned is compensation. On compensation this law further
states that – “Provision for settlement of dispute pertaining to apportionment
of the compensation amount is available under section 30 of the Act. In such a
situation, the Deputy Commissioner should refer the matter to the court. The
claimant will be entitled to the compensation which is determined on the basis
of the market value of the land determined as on the date of preliminary
notification. According to section 34, if there is delay in payment of
compensation beyond one year from the date on which possession is taken,
interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum shall be payable from the date of
expiry of the said period of one year on the outstanding amount of compensation
until the date of payment.” - Source Wiki.
3. Contentious
Issue of Compensation.
Over the years it was considered that the
compensation is not enough considering it is not only the land but the livelihood
of many. Land was seen as a source of regular income, a capital especially for
farmers. Therefore there was urgent requirement of amending this law as per the
changed social situations and aspirations of the land owners. In 2013 UPA came
out with draft amended land acquisition bill which did not see the light of the
day. The bill came up after a prolonged consultative period with all stake
holders. BJP introduced a refined and improved version of the bill plugging
impractical corners of the bill. Let us see the main difference between the
three bills at a glance in the table given below.
4. Differences
in the Land Acquisition Bill.
Table : Major Differences in the Land Acquisition
Bill
|
Feature
|
Land Acq Bill (LAB) 1894
|
UPA LARR 2013
|
NDA - LAB ORDINANCE
|
|
Compensation
|
Market rate only.
|
For a
typical rural household that owns the average of 3 acres of land, the Act
will replace the loss of annual average per capita income of Rs.11,136 for
the rural household, with:
If the
affected families on the above rural land demand 100% upfront compensation
from the land acquirer, and the market value of land is Rs.1,00,000 per acre,
the Act mandates the land acquirer to offset the loss of an average per
capita 2010 income of Rs.11,136 per year created by this 3 acre of rural
land, with the following:
(Source
Wikipedia and PDF document)
|
Same in
addition, the ordinance has brought 13 land
acquisitioning acts left in LARR 2013 bill under its ambit, thereby
increasing the number of beneficiaries.
The
LARR Act 2013 exempted 13 laws (such as the National Highways Act, 1956 and
the Railways Act, 1989) from its purview. However, the LARR Act 2013 required
that the compensation, rehabilitation, and resettlement provisions of these
13 laws be brought in consonance with the LARR Act 2013, within a year of its
enactment, through a notification. The Ordinance brings the compensation,
rehabilitation, and resettlement provisions of these 13 laws in consonance
with the LARR Act 2013.
(Source -
PRS legislative research)
|
|
Expanding the Categories
|
-
|
The
LARR Act 2013 requires that the consent of 80% of land owners is obtained for
private projects and that the consent of 70% of land owners be obtained for
PPP projects.
|
The
Ordinance exempts five categories from this provision of the Act. The five
categories are defence, rural infrastructure, affordable housing, industrial
corridors and infrastructure projects including Public Private Partnership
(PPP) projects where the central government owns the land.
|
|
Social Impact Study and acquisition of
multicropped land and irrigated land beyond certain limits
|
-
|
LARR 2013 - these are applicable to all types of
acquisition.
|
Applicable
to all types except - The
five categories - defence, rural infrastructure, affordable
housing, industrial corridors and infrastructure projects including Public
Private Partnership (PPP) projects where the central government owns the
land.
|
|
Return of unutilized land.
|
|
The
LARR Act 2013 required that if land acquired under it remained unutilised for
five years, it was returned to the original owners or the land bank.
|
Ordinance
states that the period after which unutilised land will need to be returned
will be five years, or any period specified at the time of setting up the
project, whichever is later.
|
|
Period of retrospective application
|
-
|
The
LARR Act 2013 states that the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 will continue to
apply in certain cases, where an award has been made under the 1894 Act.
However, if such as award was made five year or more before the enactment of
the LARR Act 2013, and the physical possession of land has not been taken or
compensation has not been paid, the LARR Act 2013 will apply.
|
Ordinance
states that in calculating this time period, any period during which the
proceedings of acquisition were held up: (i) due to a stay order of a court,
or (ii) a period specified in the award of a Tribunal for taking possession,
or (iii) any period where possession has been taken but the compensation is
lying deposited in a court or any account, will not be counted.
|
5. Aim
of Amending the LARR 2013 Act. The
social impact study include public hearings and expert committee report and
action renders the acquisition process extremely time consuming and
impractical. Land acquisition social impact study may not see the light of the
day. The clause of return of unutilized (for 5 years) land is highly
impractical as the all the big projects have a gestation period running into
years which easily surpass 5 year period. No project would then see the light
of the day. In effect the LARR 2013 was such a piece of legislation arrived by
true democratic spirit of taking into account all the suggestions of all the
stake holders without going into its merits and practicality that the
legislation would sure prove to be anti-acquisition and anti-growth. It is an
excellent example of how a thing cannot be get done as a result of impractical
legislation.
6. Why
Opposition. It is very easy to
paint the party in governance as anti-people / anti-farmers. The opposition
does not have anything else to sensationalise and to attract the masses at
present. Kejriwal finds it very easy to oppose everthing as his is a fledgling
party. So he calls Modi property dealer. As it is people have seen how many
times kejriwal has misled the people for votes. He believes in freebies rather
than wealth creation. BSP, JD (U), SP knows that elections are due in UP and
Bihar and if they can paint BJP as anti-farmers they could gain votes. Leftist have found that if they oppose they
can still remain relevant for some more years in India. Congress wants to
remain a player in politics and this is one issue which can touch emotions of
farmers. Their seriousness though could be understood by absence of Rahul
Gandhi in budget session. They know farmers are not going to read the fine
print and so are trying out at chicanery to change the perception of BJP from a
performing government to an anti-farmer party. TMC knows that they are on slippery
ground on Sharada Chit Fund scam and any attention deflecting subject is
welcome. Akali Dal is opposing as elections are round the corner in Punjab and
they are on slippery ground. I really have a doubt whether Shri Anna Hazare has
really read the fine print of Ordinance.
7. Tailpiece. Key infrastructure projects worth lakhs of
crores have been stalled because of impractical land acquisition legislation. If
it is not done, projects won’t get completed. The costs would keep getting escalated and the
benefits of completed projects would not get accrued. It would be a waste of
national wealth. BJP should go on regardless. Otherwise it will fritter the mandate.
Opposition would mount another attack on the ground of non performance of the
government, which is bound to get manifested with this flawed LARR 2013
legislation.
कुछ तो लोग कहेंगे, लोगोंका काम है कहना।
छोडो, बेकारकी बातोंमे, कही बीत ना जाए रैना।।
