On land acquisition

Land is a sensitive subject in India. It is because more than 50 percentage of the total population are directly dependent on agriculture for their livelihood. Till 2013, the land was acquired by the government based on the archaic 1894 which was found wanting on many aspects. The land was acquired by the government or under the patronage of the government without following due procedures. Moreover, the farmers were paid a paltry sum which, in turn drove them into perpetual poverty. Against this backdrop, the government enacted a historic law-Right to fair compensation and transparency in land acquisition, rehabilitation and resettlement act- in 2013.

However, after the BJP-led NDA government came into power, the 2013 act was amended on several aspects through promulgation of ordinance. The key changes made in the amended version of the bill pertain to the following aspects:

1. The provisions related to consent clause and Social Impact Assessment have been diluted in five crucial sectors-national security, defense, rural infrastructure, industrial corridors and housing for the poor.

2. Thirteen new acts were brought under the amended land act which would entitle the land-owners for compensation as per the new norms.

In the former, the amendment would enable the government to reduce the indirect costs involved in acquiring the land. That said, taking consent from the farmers by invoking Social Impact Assessment takes unusually longer time extending greater than 5 years in certain cases. This would naturally delay the required investment by the concerned parties. While the interests of the farmers should undoubtedly be protected, development is also essential for the larger interests of the farmers in the longer run. The compensation clause has not been tampered with and thus the government is liable to pay the farmers at the market rate.

The later amendment is certainly beneficial to the farmers since thirteen previously excluded acts were brought under the compensation provisions of the new act. The land-owners can thus legally claim compensation at market prices from the government.

However, in my view, there are certain contentious provisions in the amended bill that requires further deliberation. The term ‘rural infrastructure’ is vague and open-ended. The need is to objectively define ‘rural infrastructure’ so that the land may not be snatched away arbitrarily by varied interpretations of the law. Moreover, the compensation to the farmers should be paid from the date of taking possession of the land rather than the date of notification.

The Prime Minister, in the ‘Maan ki baat’ radio program, has tried to assuage the apprehension of the farming community. He has asserted that the government would not acquire land from the farmers beyond what is necessary and that the interests of the farmers would be protected at any cost.