The land bill controversy

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!