 "All you need to know about the land Bill row")
On December 31 last year, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) Ordinance, 2014, replaced the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, passed by the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government of the day. The UPA Act had replaced the colonial Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Later, in March 2015, a Bill with some changes to the 2013 Act was approved by the Lok Sabha but not put to vote in the Rajya Sabha. It was then promulgated for a second time as an ordinance in April 2015. Since this ordinance was to lapse in early July, it was promulgated for a third time on 30 May.
On 12 May, the Lok Sabha referred the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Second Amendment) Bill, 2015, to a joint committee of Parliament.
Amid all this, a political slugfest has started over the ordinance, with the Opposition parties alleging it is undemocratic and anti-farmer. The government is cheating farmers to pass on benefits to industrialists, and planning to snatch land in the same fashion as the British did, they say.
What are the issues on which these parties are opposing the government? Here’s a look at key differences between the land law brought by the UPA government and the changes proposed by the current National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government.
CONSENT CLAUSE
More From This Section
What the law said: The 2013 Act has a requirement of prior consent of at least 80 per cent of the affected families before acquiring land. For public-private-partnership projects (PPP), prior consent has to be of at least 70 per cent of the affected families.
What the NDA ordinance says: The amendment proposes that for projects relating to five categories — (i) national security or defence; (ii) rural infrastructure, including electrification; (iii) affordable housing for the poor; (iv) industrial corridors; and (v) social infrastructure and PPP projects where government holds the land — there should no longer be any need for prior consent.
What the Opposition says: The proposal is aimed at grabbing the land of poor farmers to please select corporate beneficiaries. A dilution of consent clause would be a way to unfairly oust farmers from their own land.
SOCIAL-IMPACT ASSESSMENT
What the 2013 law said: The 2013 Act makes it compulsory to carry out social-impact assessment (SIA) for land acquisition for all projects.
What the NDA ordinance says: SIA is not necessary for the five categories mentioned earlier. It completely removes the role of Panchayats in the negotiation process. SIA, however, is mandatory for all other acquisitions (that is, government acquisition for itself, PPP and private not belonging to the five categories).
What the Opposition says: The opponents of the Bill argue that most items defined as public purpose (that is, for which land can be acquired) fall within these five exempted categories.
THE COMPENSATION CLAUSE
What the 2013 law said: It provides for compensation of twice the price of land in urban areas, and of two to four times the price of land in rural areas. However, the bulk of land acquisition instances have taken place under the 13 existing pieces of legislation (like the Railways Act, the Electricity Act, the Atomic Energy Act, etc) listed in Schedule IV of the Act, and these are exempted from the compensation and rehabilitation & resettlement guarantees.
What the NDA ordinance says: The amendment has removed the aforementioned provision. It provides compensation at four times the market rate. The government has also said the compensation will be applicable to not only the land owners but also the people dependent on that land.
What the Opposition says: Rehabilitation & resettlement should be provided to all those whose land is acquired, the tenants on the land and all those dependent on the land in some other way — that is, artisans, shopkeepers and small traders as well.
TIME LIMIT CLAUSE
What the 2013 law said: The 2013 law says if the acquired land remains unutilised for a period of five years from the date of taking possession, the land shall be returned to the owners.
What the NDA ordinance says: The NDA amendment has changed it from “five years” with “a period specified for setting up of any project or for five years” and period wasted in legal matters is not included in this timeframe.
What the Opposition says: The opponents of the Bill argue this is meant to address projects that might take more than five years.
ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR ‘PRIVATE ENTITIES’
What the 2013 law said: The 2013 Act was applicable when land was acquired for private companies for projects with a public purpose.
What the NDA ordinance says: It replaces ‘private company’ with ‘private entity’. A private entity is defined as an entity other than a government one, and can include a proprietorship, partnership, company, corporation, non-profit organisation, or other entity. This will enable, for instance, acquisition for a private educational trust.
OFFENCES BY GOVT/GOVT OFFICIALS
What the 2013 law said: If an offence was committed by the government, the head of the department would be deemed guilty, unless he could show the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he had exercised due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence.
What the NDA ordinance says: It removes this provision and inserts a new provision stating that if an offence is committed by a government official, he cannot be prosecuted without the prior sanction of the government.