)
The National Democratic Alliance (NDA) has made nine amendments to its land Bill, tabled in Parliament on Monday. Most of these were cosmetic in nature, leaving the key elements of the original promulgation intact - the lack of need for consent and social impact assessment while acquiring land for private projects; public-private partnerships and government acquisitions.
Rural Development Minister Chaudhary Birender Singh did move two amendments that brought some clarity to the class of projects that would be permitted forceful acquisition of land.
The minister's amendment clarified that forceful acquisition for industrial corridors would be permitted only up to one kilometre of land on either side of designated highways or railway lines.
In the land ordinance, the NDA government had left the term 'industrial corridor' undefined leading to fear that vast swaths of land would be acquired for various kinds of projects in the name of industrial corridors.
Even now, in just the case of the 1,483-km Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor, the government would be able to forcefully acquire land over 2,966 sq km spread across six states.
The NDA government also brought in an amendment, claiming it would no more acquire land for 'social infrastructure'. In a way, it was only fixing a badly drafted ordinance as the term 'social infrastructure' was not defined to begin. Additionally, most other projects that could fall under the term are already covered by other provisions of the 2013 land law and continue to enjoy exception from the need for consent or social impact assessment through the ordinance.
The government hoping to win over some allies in the battle of wits with the Congress of the ordinance also removed the clause that provided government the power to forcefully acquire lands for hospitals and educational institutions built either through the private, PPP or government route.
A clause was brought in through the amendments that would now require the government to ensure the extent of land required for the acquisitions is the bare minimum. But this too, just as in the case of deciding compensation and rehabilitation packages, would be at the discretion of the state or central government authorities.
Reacting to the criticism about not doing enough for those besides landowners in terms of compensation, the government moved an amendment, making it mandatory for the acquiring entity to provide employment to one member of a family of farm labour impacted by the forceful acquisition of land. But the 2013 Act passed by the UPA not only provided for employment to impacted farm labourer but also other impacted groups of people.
The government also changed the technical language about whether an officer making decisions under the law would be prosecuted for any illegal acts. Even the amended clause makes it mandatory for the prior consent of central or state governments to prosecute any officer that commits a crime under the land acquisition law as per Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
In another cosmetic move, the Centre has now provided that the appeals authority - a single person appointed by the government to review the compensation and rehabilitation package - shall be able to hold hearings in the district where the land acquisition takes place. The 2013 law did not expressly disbar this from happening in the first place.
