The Land Acquisition Bill renamed as The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill 2011 is to go before the Group of Ministers today in a version that has pleased the industry but angered the civil society.
The Bill which in its original form required consent of 80% of the land owners and affected families can now be acquired with just two thirds of the land owners giving their consent.
This would prevent a Singur like situation where share croppers were the most affected people by the land acquisition.
As a concession to the critics of the Bill, the Ministry of Rural Development has however dropped the provision of acquisition for public private partnerships, a move welcomed by civil society leaders like Medha Patkar.
The Bill has also drastically reduced the compensation required for land. While earlier land in rural areas called for compensation that was four times the market rate, With the newly introduced sliding rates the land which is 50 km away gets double the market rate while that is close to cities gets just the rate. Thus the original benefits provided for rural areas in terms of higher compensation have been reduced by several times.
Again urban areas also suffer under the sliding rate making them cheaper. There is no enhancement on market value while in the previous version of the Bill urban areas provided compensation that was double the market rate.
While the earlier version which had gone before the Standing Committee of Parliament provided that the relief and rehabilitation would be effective on ongoing projects. But the new version churned out by the ministry after taking into account the comments of the committee has dropped that clause and replaced it with a new clause which says that the benefits would apply only prospectively, that is for projects that start after the legislation.
The new version also removes the liability of the acquirer to ensure that R and R infrastructure work is completed before beginning a project. Now the payment for R and R costs are enough for the acquirer to start his own project after evictions. It would be left to the state government to carry out the R and R.
"The Bill, if accepted in current form, will not only increase the conflicts surrounding the land across the country as being witnessed around the various infrastructure projects but will prove fatal for it in the next general elections," National Alliance of People's Movement led by Medha Patkar said.
It appealed to Group of Ministers meeting today under Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar that the GoM must heed the voices of the people and not to investors.
It also urged the Ministry of Rural Development to "not bow to the pressure of the industry lobby and rather pay heed to the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Tribal Affairs and Urban Housing who are mandated to look after the interests of the marginal communities."
Ficci president R V Kanoria had in a recent statement appealed for changes saying that the Bill burdened the industry. “The current R&R provisions of the Bill will put an unfavourable burden on the industry as it will escalate the land cost at least by three to four times if compared with the existing provisions of Land Acquisition Act 1894,” he said.
That the law would apply only to new projects makes it less complex, feel industry represenatives, adding that things wont improve unless compensation was brought down further and larger projects were brought under public purpose.
They however welcomed a provision to make the compensation one off. As per changes, the acquirer can put all the compensation funds in an account and ongoing commitments like benefits and annuities will be administered by an agency established under the Act. If it is true, it is welcome, said an industry source.
But the same clause has the civil society cry wolf. The new version gives power to industry to take possession upon payment of monetary components alone. Earlier possession could be taken only when all payments and infrastructural amenities had been provided. Now possession can be taken after the monetary amounts have been paid. This would lead to evictions and conflicts, warned Madhuresh Kumar of NAPM.
