There’s little doubt that the state needs additional land to facilitate faster industrial development, but leasing land from farmers rather than outright purchase might work better.
Director General, Ficci
Before any land is acquired, the huge land banks that the states hold under their industrial development corporations need to be tapped and exhausted
It is clear industry needs land, whether it is for infrastructure, power generation or for various other sectors. In the most recent context, the government has declared its intent to expand the share of manufacturing from the current 15 per cent to 25 per cent and this would entail the creation of huge manufacturing zones. So the need for additional land cannot be ruled out and would, in fact, be primary to these policies achieving their objectives.
Before any land is acquired, however, the huge land banks that the states hold under their industrial development corporations need to be tapped and exhausted. This is rarely done. When manufacturing zones are set up under the new proposed policy, it is these land banks that should first be taken.
Again, urban centres should have a clear land use plan so that industry understands the boundaries of the no-go areas. Land meant for industry should be demarcated so that it is very clear which land is available for acquisition.
More From This Section
And when it comes to acquisition one should follow the Haryana model, which lets you acquire land up to 90 per cent. The remaining 10 per cent of the land required is then surrendered at the same rates as the rest was acquired.
In Haryana, the state does not interfere at all but it facilitates the acquisition of the remaining 10 per cent so there is no blackmail by a group of land owners holding an entire project to ransom.
The current agitation in the Haryana industrial belt is inexplicable because the state government has long given up buying land from the people for industrial purposes. It pays annual royalties to the land owners so that they also get good compensation for the annual earnings lost from the land.
Another thing that is required to make way for healthy land-acquisition processes is the junking of the colonial law on land acquisition. The Land Acquisition Act is outdated and gives states the power to acquire land and gives it too much authority as the entity that facilitates land sales. In fact, it has permanently given the state the role of a middle man as far as land acquisition is concerned. Has it helped? The unrest is often triggered by the interference of the state as a buyer.
States should stop acquiring land because their interference does not help at all. Industry pays the price in any case, whether the land is acquired by the state or by the industry. The industry does not make any profits or margins in either case. So why shouldn’t the industry buy directly as in Haryana? The state should stay out of these deals. Now, you find the political parties who have all along interfered in different states are blaming industry for everything. Currently the entire issue is being politicised and the industry is being painted as the bad guy.
Most industries are willing to pay the market price, barring some cases. In Singur, West Bengal, for instance, land was acquired below market rates. These exceptions and concessions should be reserved for critical infrastructure projects like power. The share of state acquisition could be increased to 30 per cent for such essential infrastructure projects, the list of which should be clearly defined. Steel should not fall in this category because, if it is, all manufacturing would have to be included.
I believe in the Haryana model there is provision for employment as well. It may be useful to consider one job for local people per unit of land. If this requires some training, so be it. All this means that price of land in our country is high compared to others, so that is bound to affect the choice of industries and we should accept that. But at least there will be and should be a determinate price because the worst situation is the complete uncertainty and politicisation that prevails now.
Coordinator, Kisan Sangharsh Samiti, National Capital Territory
The demand for providing a better royalty or a rental can be considered along with the possibility of a permanent stake in industrial projects
On principle, I believe that the farmer should always remain the owner of his land and, if his land is needed for an industrial project, it should be leased out and not sold to anyone. This is an important point because anybody who thinks that states acquire land for various projects and will actually use it for those purposes is living in a fool’s paradise. What states typically do is acquire land now, and develop it, say, 15 years later when prices have gone up several folds. So, the state fills its coffers with huge profits from land speculation and the farmer, who would have received little long-term benefit from the sale in any case, is pushed into destitution or forced to migrate.
This is not to say states should not acquire land at all. Let them acquire it for public good — for roads, bridges or highways. But they should not be allowed to buy land for builders or for the kind of townships that are proposed to be built around Delhi. In fact, we are not against states acquiring land for townships either — provided it is infertile land that is taken for the purpose. The land around Delhi is fertile. If you acquire that, where is your food going to come from?
And if land indeed is needed, then the farmer should always remain the owner. After all, land is the only capital that the farmer has. He has neither education nor any other means to rebuild his life. So if his land is taken away, the few lakhs or even crores of rupees the farmer is paid for it cannot provide him with the kind of sustainable and self-sufficient livelihood that is available from the land in the form of food and crop income. It cannot provide the farmer’s modestly educated son the benefits it could have provided a city-dweller’s son or daughter.
It is also important that in all these deals the state should not be a mediator either. Look at Palwal in Haryana. The state government model for land acquisition is being hailed by one and all as an ideal. But in Palwal the state gave Rs 16 lakh per acre or Rs 330 per square metre. Later, it sold it for Rs 2,000 per square metre! This is blatantly wrong and amounts to a fraud on farmers.
In fact, the state has to think about the farmers’ future after they have lost their land. They need rehabilitation because they have nothing to do once the land is gone. The state typically promises a Class D job to one of their sons. That means, even if that son is an MBA he gets a peon’s job. What kind of rehabilitation is that?
Even the royalty given by the Haryana model is a farce. It gives Rs 15,000 per acre per year to the farmer who has sold his land. But what is Rs 15,000 for a year that has 12 months? Shouldn’t the royalty be at least Rs 2.5 lakh to Rs 3 lakh per year for an acre? The intent is not honest and is totally lacking in sensitivity to the needs of the rural people and farmers who have been feeding the nation.
The idea of land being taken on lease rather than being bought for good is something that most farmers now demand. For they have understood that selling it never helps in the long run.
The demand for providing a better royalty or a rental can be considered along with the possibility of giving the farmer a permanent stake in any project that comes up on his land. The idea is that the land that he once tilled should continue to yield him returns on a permanent basis, just as it would if he still farmed it.
Neither the Haryana model nor the proposed land acquisition amendment Bill talks about these things. That’s because the farmers’ interest is not part of the larger picture for the political leaders concerned.
As told to Sreelatha Menon