The Bill has all the right intentions but none of the clauses that can empower the seller and quell controversy over land acquisitions.
The Land Acquisition Bill draft proposed by the Rural Development Ministry has an opportunity to quell the flames of anger following land acquisitions that have consumed the country lately. For instance, the ‘Relief and Rehabilitation’ (R & R) clause offered in the Bill and the exclusion of agricultural land from acquisition are brand new additions.
“The Bill is better than anything that has come from the Government,” says Madhuresh Kumar, member of the National Alliance of People’s Movements led by Medha Patkar, adding that “it is still riddled with contradictions.”
A closer look at the Bill reveals that despite cosmetic improvements, serious flaws remain. Even this Bill, say many, promises many things to those who are willing to sell their land, while offering no mechanisms to ensure that they actually get them.
Essentially, the Bill is still a buyer’s Bill, not a seller’s ‘Rights Document’, which is what is required, say critics.
A glaring gap in the draft Bill is that it fails to state how the consent of public over acquisition is to be taken. According to section 7, eighty per cent consent has to be “ascertained” (not obtained) by a committee of officials led by the Chief Secretary's committee. This implies that it may well be the private developer who will be obtaining the “consent.”
More From This Section
Gopalakrishnan, who has been following land turmoil in tribal districts, refuses to be carried away by the goodies promised in the draft. “It is making the right noises which is worse than not doing so.” The basic flaw in the draft, he says, is its ambiguity regarding decision making procedures where everything remains in the hands of the same officials and there is no real way for the public consultation to impact the decision making process.
While the draft Bill excludes irrigated multi-cropped land from acquisition, and offers six times the market rate for other land, farmers are not excited. Rajesh Tikait of the Bharatiya Kisan Union feels that the definition of market value that the Bill gives is totally unacceptable. “It calculates market value as the average of costs quoted over three years in various sale deeds. Rates are always underwritten in sale deeds and are totally unreliable,” says Tikait. Moreover, “about three fourth of farm land is un-irrigated. And these belong to the poorest farmers. The Bill does not address them,” says activist Medha Patkar.
The other clause in the draft Bill attracting heavy flak is the cut-off point from which R & R applies. Only when acquisition is more than 100 acres do land owners get R & R promised in the Bill. Which means that if seven families are forced to give up their land for a highway, they don’t get any R & R. Says Tikait: “Unless every acquisition is compensated in the same way, conflicts would continue. If land is acquired to build a highway or a road, why should the land owner always suffer?”
Another serious issue is that the Bill doesn’t address people’s objections. There is a public hearing required by section 4, but the results of this hearing are never mentioned. What happens if people object? What happens if most oppose? Who is accountable for deciding on these objections and who will answer for them? Under this draft, no one. At three different places, the law says “gram sabhas will be consulted,” but again, nothing is stated about its potential objections as well. Ravi Rebbepragada of Samata cites the example of a gram sabha in Chattisgarh which objected to land acquisition by NMDC. Their resolution was simply torn up by the police and the land acquired, he says.
Then, there is the Dispute Settlement Authority that the Bill provides which is supposed to settle all disputes, including R&R. However, it is only empowered to give orders on compensation , and cannot direct any authority to do anything.
“The result in practice will be that R&R will not occur and affected people with sufficient support will be sent into PILs and endless court battles; those without will be left with nothing. This is just what happens at present,” says Gopalakrishnan.
For the Bill to work, it needs to be a fair representation of both buyers and sellers, should involve the gram sabha in land agreements and should invest the gram sabha or local body with the legal authority to even review a project if required.
Without this, the earnest efforts of a well intentioned minister and his Bill could be rendered a waste of valuable time.