What are the controversies in the
land bill? What are the changes that everybody is objecting to? Is there really
any loss to the farmers (as projected by the Congress and allies) or is the law
a good move towards the development of India (as projected by the NDA)?
This post aims to simplify the
issues.
The concept of land acquisition and need for a law
In order to carry out several
developmental and other activities, the government needs land. Often, this land
is not owned by the government. For example, if an industrial corridor is proposed
in the state of Gujarat and there is a requirement of land, most of it may not be
owned by the government.
In such a case, the government may have to buy the
land from many other private owners (such as farmers). However, these people
may not want to sell their lands. This may affect the development activities. Therefore, the land acquisition law provides for compulsory acquisition of land, subject to certain conditions and procedure.
History of land acquisition law in India
Historically, the land
acquisition was governed by the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In 2013, a new law
for land acquisition was brought in India by UPA government called the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013. In 2014, however, after the NDA government came to
power under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, they wanted to make
certain changes in the law governing land acquisition in India. The opposition
parties are strongly objecting to these changes.
So let us now analyse the changes
proposed by the Modi government and their implications.
ONE:
Inclusion of private hospitals and private educational institutes
As per the 2013 law, land
acquisition law shall not apply in case the land is being acquired for private
hospitals, private hotels and private educational institutions. However, the
NDA government wants to include private hospitals and private educational
institutions in the list. This means that land can now be compulsorily acquired
even for the purposes of opening educational institutions and private hospitals.
Some people are objecting to this, saying that private hospitals and
educational institutions cannot be called ‘public
purposes’
TWO:
Condition of consent and SIA removed for certain projects
In the 2013 law, there were two
important conditions before land acquisition can take place.
1. First,
consent of 80% of affected families was required for private projects (for PPP
projects, consent of 70% of affected families was required)
2. Second,
a Social Impact Assessment was required to be conducted. This report basically
aims to study the impact of land acquisition on the lives of people living in
the affected area.
However, the Modi government
seeks to exempt FIVE categories of projects from this requirement. These are –
a) National
security or defense
b) Rural
infrastructure, including electrification
c) Affordable
housing for poor people
d) Industrial
corridors
e) Infrastructure
projects
While the other categories are understandable,
the inclusion of “industrial corridors” in this list is controversial. This
means that if the government wants to establish an industrial corridor in a
given space (for example, the Delhi Mumbai Industrial Corridor), then the land of farmers can be acquired even without
their consent and without any assessment of the social impact.
This remains one of the biggest issues of
disagreement with the ordinance passed by the Modi government. It appears as
though this change has been introduced solely to benefit the construction of
industrial corridors to woo investment. While that is a good cause for the
country, however, it is argued that doing this at the cost of farmers is not
justified. It must be ascertained what are the social impacts of these
acquisitions, so that it is open for everybody to see. This is missing in the
bill.
THREE:
Inclusion of private entities other than private companies
Earlier, the land acquisition law
was applicable to private companies, meaning that whenever private companies
acquire land for public purpose, then the law of compulsory acquisition was
applicable. In the amendments suggested by Modi government, this widens the
scope to include private entities other than private companies.
So, for example, if a private
partnership firm wants to acquire its land for, let’s say, building a private
hospital, then the land acquisition law will apply (which means that compulsory
acquisition can take place, subject to compensation as computed by this law). Although
it may not have a very big impact, but the fact remains that wider inclusion of
private entities harms the farmers’ land security even more.
Whether these changes prove
beneficial to the country or not; only time will tell. But for now, the impact
of these changes on the lives of farmers is something that must be appreciated.
The logic behind exclusion of consent clauses for industrial purposes is
obviously in favour of big industries, but whether it is justified, is a matter
of perception. May the best law prevail!
