This refers to Vinayak Chatterjee's column "Trust deficit in land acquisition" (Infratalk, April 7). While he has quoted pertinent data on how the existing land acquisition law has worked against the interests of the poor and the tribal people, he has not considered two other related issues: the fundamental right to property and that the ruling economic dogma extols the virtue of the market and least state interference in economic matters, which means a willing buyer and a willing seller.
As far as having a commission is concerned, if we look at the past experience of choosing impartial, independent and objective members in various commissions, boards and regulatory authorities, one does not get any comfort that the composition will be flawless or not be subject to judicial challenge. There is, however, a bigger worry. A commission will take a case-by-case approach, which brings in discretion. As an example, all new projects, even a shopping mall, Formula One racetrack or a casino, will lead to employment, which can easily be defended as being in the national interest in a country with high unemployment. After the coal allocation mess, it is clear that it will be dangerous, not just lazy, to leave things so open. In fact, the government will gain credibility if it sets about to quickly recover unutilised or diverted "acquired land" and work on rehabilitation of the project affected people (PAP).
For the future, Parliament should narrowly define cases where compulsory acquisition will be exempted. The inclusion of railways, national highways, defence and irrigation assets in that list seems incontrovertible. In other cases, if the compensation and rehabilitation packages are adequate, then to assume that more than 30 per cent of PAPs will still object, is to believe that people are not smart enough to know what is good for them. If that is so, then the first right they should lose is the right to vote.
Letters can be mailed, faxed or e-mailed to:
The Editor, Business Standard
Nehru House, 4 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg
New Delhi 110 002
Fax: (011) 23720201
E-mail: letters@bsmail.in
All letters must have a postal address and telephone number
As far as having a commission is concerned, if we look at the past experience of choosing impartial, independent and objective members in various commissions, boards and regulatory authorities, one does not get any comfort that the composition will be flawless or not be subject to judicial challenge. There is, however, a bigger worry. A commission will take a case-by-case approach, which brings in discretion. As an example, all new projects, even a shopping mall, Formula One racetrack or a casino, will lead to employment, which can easily be defended as being in the national interest in a country with high unemployment. After the coal allocation mess, it is clear that it will be dangerous, not just lazy, to leave things so open. In fact, the government will gain credibility if it sets about to quickly recover unutilised or diverted "acquired land" and work on rehabilitation of the project affected people (PAP).
For the future, Parliament should narrowly define cases where compulsory acquisition will be exempted. The inclusion of railways, national highways, defence and irrigation assets in that list seems incontrovertible. In other cases, if the compensation and rehabilitation packages are adequate, then to assume that more than 30 per cent of PAPs will still object, is to believe that people are not smart enough to know what is good for them. If that is so, then the first right they should lose is the right to vote.
P Datta Kolkata
Letters can be mailed, faxed or e-mailed to:
The Editor, Business Standard
Nehru House, 4 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg
New Delhi 110 002
Fax: (011) 23720201
E-mail: letters@bsmail.in
All letters must have a postal address and telephone number