 "Land Bill aims to address widespread and historical injustices: Jairam Ramesh")
The land acquisition Bill, renamed the Right To Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill, 2012, was passed in the Lok Sabha on Thursday. Rural Development Minister Jairam Ramesh, in an interview with Sreelatha Menon, says the focus of the Bill isn’t expediting land acquisition but addressing injustices in the process. Edited excerpts:
What according to you is the main achievement of the land Bill ?
There are many areas in which the Bill makes unprecedented progress. Providing for consensual acquisition is new — enhanced rates of compensation; comprehensive rehabilitation and resettlement requirements that protect livelihood and identity; securing tribal rights. This law has a very clear objective: Making acquisition as humane as possible.
Then, our advice would be to be less reliant on acquisition and exhaust other avenues first, such as leasing the land or even private purchase. However, to limit delays, we have prescribed short deadlines for all the processes prescribed.
While consent of 80 per cent of people affected by the project is required, is there a way to identify the truly deserving persons? What would be the definition of a project affected family?
We have very clearly identified which families would fall under the definition of affected families. Any family that has been living or working on the land for the last three years will be automatically entitled to receive the benefits under this law. Other individuals such as sharecroppers and those enjoying tenancy rights over the land would also be included. It is a wide and expansive definition that seeks to ensure no deserving party is left out.
Why should the government acquire land for private companies and public-private partnership projects? Often, the state is seen as an adversary, rather than a supporter, by those who lose land.
The sheer inequality in terms of the bargaining power of large-scale companies on one side and small farmers and other marginalised groups on the other increases the likelihood of unfair agreements. Contracts tend to be signed in favour of the party negotiating from a position of greater strength. That is why the government has to bridge the gap and bring balance to this relationship. A legitimate need for acquisition by the state (to build roads, schools, hospitals, etc) can be undermined and stalled by groups with vested interests.
Is the Bill too focused on compensation to the point that it ignores industry’s requirement of quick possession of land?
The primary purpose of the old law was to expedite acquisition. But the new Bill reflects the United Progressive Alliance government’s determination to address widespread and historical injustices that occur in the wake of land acquisition by establishing strong legal prerequisites.
There were fears the compensation wouldn’t carry the market value. Also, in rural areas, the sliding compensation was considered counterproductive by many.
Given the inaccurate nature of circle rates, the Bill proposes the payment of compensation up to four times the market value in rural areas and two times the market value in urban areas.
How would the retrospective clause operate?
To address historical injustices, the Bill applies retrospectively to cases in which no land acquisition award has been made. Also, in cases in which the land was acquired five years ago but no compensation has been paid or no possession has taken place, the land acquisition process would be started afresh, in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
Would the Bill reduce conflicts with farmers?
The retrospective provision is there. Another pro-farmer clause is the requirement of prior consent from 70 per cent and 80 per cent of land losers and those working on government-assigned lands for acquisitions in the case of public-private partnerships and private companies, respectively. This consent also includes consent to the compensation to be paid.
Besides, unused land can now be returned to the original owner if a state so decides. Another helpful provision is the share to be distributed among farmers in the increased land value (when the acquired land is sold to another party) has been set at 40 per cent. And, the amount accrued is exempted from income tax and stamp duty. There would be strict restrictions on multi-crop acquisition. States would decide the extent to which this can be allowed.
There are breaks on acquisition of farm land. It would be permitted by the collector only if non-farm land is unavailable. Again, the final award has to include the damage to any standing crop that might have been harmed due to the process of acquisition.
In case a farmer’s land has been acquired for urbanisation purposes, 20 per cent of the developed land would be reserved and offered to the farmers, in proportion to the area of their land acquired and at a price equal to the cost of acquisition and the cost of development. In the case of irrigation or hydel projects, affected families may be allowed fishing rights in the reservoirs.
What are the rehabilitation and resettlement benefits under the Bill?
To qualify for benefits under this Act, the period has been reduced from five to three years of dependence (on the acquired land). It provides a house for every family displaced. If it chooses not to accept the house, it would get a one-time financial grant. All affected families are given a choice of annuity or jobs. If employment is not forthcoming, they are entitled to a one-time grant of Rs 5 lakh a family. Alternatively, they would be provided with an annuity payment of Rs 2,000 a family a month for twenty years, to be adjusted for inflation. Apart from this, an affected family gets a monthly subsistence allowance equivalent to Rs 3,000 a month for one year from the date of award. It would also be imparted skill development, besides getting monetary benefits such as transport allowance of Rs 50,000, a resettlement allowance of Rs 50,000 and a one-time aid of at least Rs 25,000.
What is the time limit for providing rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements?
The components of the rehabilitation and resettlement package that relate to infrastructural entitlements shall be provided within eighteen months from the date of the award.
What about acquisition in scheduled areas?
This would be done as a last resort. It has to be done with the approval/consent of the local institutions of self-governance. The affected Scheduled Tribe (ST) families shall be resettled preferably in the same scheduled area, in a compact block so that they can retain their ethnic, linguistic and cultural identity. In case they are moved out of the district, they would get more land and more compensation. Again, a third of the compensation has to be paid at the outset in the case of STs and Scheduled Castes.
Is it true the new Bill leaves almost everything to the state?
The Bill only provides the baseline for compensation. It has devised a sliding scale that allows states to fix the multiplier (which would determine the final award), depending on the distance from urban centres.
Where unutilised land is returned the state, it can decide whether it goes to the original owner or to the land bank.
While the Bill requires the discharge of obligations related to resettlement and rehabilitation, even in the case of private purchase if it exceeds a certain threshold, it leaves the said threshold to the discretion of the state governments.
It is also for states to decide the extent of farm lands it wants to reserve for protection.
Does the compensation discourage acquisition in urban areas?
In urban areas, there is no multiplier, which means there is no enhancement of the market value calculated. However solatium of 100 per cent (currently 30 per cent) is imposed on the market value calculated. This solatium is a compensation to ameliorate the pain of forcible acquisition.
What according to you is the main achievement of the land Bill ?
There are many areas in which the Bill makes unprecedented progress. Providing for consensual acquisition is new — enhanced rates of compensation; comprehensive rehabilitation and resettlement requirements that protect livelihood and identity; securing tribal rights. This law has a very clear objective: Making acquisition as humane as possible.
Also Read
Industry fears the Bill would delay projects, as many processes have been added.
Then, our advice would be to be less reliant on acquisition and exhaust other avenues first, such as leasing the land or even private purchase. However, to limit delays, we have prescribed short deadlines for all the processes prescribed.
While consent of 80 per cent of people affected by the project is required, is there a way to identify the truly deserving persons? What would be the definition of a project affected family?
We have very clearly identified which families would fall under the definition of affected families. Any family that has been living or working on the land for the last three years will be automatically entitled to receive the benefits under this law. Other individuals such as sharecroppers and those enjoying tenancy rights over the land would also be included. It is a wide and expansive definition that seeks to ensure no deserving party is left out.
Why should the government acquire land for private companies and public-private partnership projects? Often, the state is seen as an adversary, rather than a supporter, by those who lose land.
The sheer inequality in terms of the bargaining power of large-scale companies on one side and small farmers and other marginalised groups on the other increases the likelihood of unfair agreements. Contracts tend to be signed in favour of the party negotiating from a position of greater strength. That is why the government has to bridge the gap and bring balance to this relationship. A legitimate need for acquisition by the state (to build roads, schools, hospitals, etc) can be undermined and stalled by groups with vested interests.
Is the Bill too focused on compensation to the point that it ignores industry’s requirement of quick possession of land?
The primary purpose of the old law was to expedite acquisition. But the new Bill reflects the United Progressive Alliance government’s determination to address widespread and historical injustices that occur in the wake of land acquisition by establishing strong legal prerequisites.
There were fears the compensation wouldn’t carry the market value. Also, in rural areas, the sliding compensation was considered counterproductive by many.
Given the inaccurate nature of circle rates, the Bill proposes the payment of compensation up to four times the market value in rural areas and two times the market value in urban areas.
How would the retrospective clause operate?
To address historical injustices, the Bill applies retrospectively to cases in which no land acquisition award has been made. Also, in cases in which the land was acquired five years ago but no compensation has been paid or no possession has taken place, the land acquisition process would be started afresh, in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
Would the Bill reduce conflicts with farmers?
The retrospective provision is there. Another pro-farmer clause is the requirement of prior consent from 70 per cent and 80 per cent of land losers and those working on government-assigned lands for acquisitions in the case of public-private partnerships and private companies, respectively. This consent also includes consent to the compensation to be paid.
Besides, unused land can now be returned to the original owner if a state so decides. Another helpful provision is the share to be distributed among farmers in the increased land value (when the acquired land is sold to another party) has been set at 40 per cent. And, the amount accrued is exempted from income tax and stamp duty. There would be strict restrictions on multi-crop acquisition. States would decide the extent to which this can be allowed.
There are breaks on acquisition of farm land. It would be permitted by the collector only if non-farm land is unavailable. Again, the final award has to include the damage to any standing crop that might have been harmed due to the process of acquisition.
In case a farmer’s land has been acquired for urbanisation purposes, 20 per cent of the developed land would be reserved and offered to the farmers, in proportion to the area of their land acquired and at a price equal to the cost of acquisition and the cost of development. In the case of irrigation or hydel projects, affected families may be allowed fishing rights in the reservoirs.
What are the rehabilitation and resettlement benefits under the Bill?
To qualify for benefits under this Act, the period has been reduced from five to three years of dependence (on the acquired land). It provides a house for every family displaced. If it chooses not to accept the house, it would get a one-time financial grant. All affected families are given a choice of annuity or jobs. If employment is not forthcoming, they are entitled to a one-time grant of Rs 5 lakh a family. Alternatively, they would be provided with an annuity payment of Rs 2,000 a family a month for twenty years, to be adjusted for inflation. Apart from this, an affected family gets a monthly subsistence allowance equivalent to Rs 3,000 a month for one year from the date of award. It would also be imparted skill development, besides getting monetary benefits such as transport allowance of Rs 50,000, a resettlement allowance of Rs 50,000 and a one-time aid of at least Rs 25,000.
What is the time limit for providing rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements?
The components of the rehabilitation and resettlement package that relate to infrastructural entitlements shall be provided within eighteen months from the date of the award.
What about acquisition in scheduled areas?
This would be done as a last resort. It has to be done with the approval/consent of the local institutions of self-governance. The affected Scheduled Tribe (ST) families shall be resettled preferably in the same scheduled area, in a compact block so that they can retain their ethnic, linguistic and cultural identity. In case they are moved out of the district, they would get more land and more compensation. Again, a third of the compensation has to be paid at the outset in the case of STs and Scheduled Castes.
Is it true the new Bill leaves almost everything to the state?
The Bill only provides the baseline for compensation. It has devised a sliding scale that allows states to fix the multiplier (which would determine the final award), depending on the distance from urban centres.
Where unutilised land is returned the state, it can decide whether it goes to the original owner or to the land bank.
While the Bill requires the discharge of obligations related to resettlement and rehabilitation, even in the case of private purchase if it exceeds a certain threshold, it leaves the said threshold to the discretion of the state governments.
It is also for states to decide the extent of farm lands it wants to reserve for protection.
Does the compensation discourage acquisition in urban areas?
In urban areas, there is no multiplier, which means there is no enhancement of the market value calculated. However solatium of 100 per cent (currently 30 per cent) is imposed on the market value calculated. This solatium is a compensation to ameliorate the pain of forcible acquisition.