Land acquisitions lead to great tragedy and ruination of poor families, according to the Supreme Court.
The murky terrain of land acquisition law has been traversed by activists, economists and politicians resulting in an abortive bill to amend the Land Acquisition Act 1894. If and when the law-makers reconsider the issue, one essential reading is last week’s judgement of the Supreme Court in which it has explained how harshly the owner of the land is being dealt with by the authorities and the courts.
The Supreme Court was dealing with a case in which a little over an acre was acquired for an industrial project in 1990. The compensation offered was Rs 4,000 an acre. This was challenged in the reference court. In 2005, it raised the compensation to Rs 30,420. The authorities filed an appeal in the High Court arguing that the rate was excessive. It was dismissed. A second appeal was also dismissed in 2007. Then the poor farmer was dragged to the Supreme Court. Now the government lost a fourth time in the case, Special Land Acquisition Officer vs Mahaboob. The court did not enhance the rate but used the occasion to highlight the general plight of such landowners. According to the Supreme Court, the following is typical of what happens in land acquisitions, and it should know.
A farmer owns 3 acres, which is his sole means of livelihood. The land is acquired for some project in 1990. The true market value of the land is around Rs 1.5 lakh an acre. If he got the price, that is, Rs 4.5 lakh with solatium, additional amount and interest in 1991, he has a reasonable opportunity of purchasing some alternative land. But this rarely happens in practice. The final notification is made in 1992 and the authorities make an award in 1993 offering Rs 50,000.
So the land-loser is constrained to seek a reference to the court. It takes three to four years to decide the reference and increases the compensation to Rs 1 lakh in 1996. The increased amount is deposited in 1997-1998. The land loser is again compelled to file a further appeal to the High Court, which takes four years to increase the compensation to Rs 1.5 lakh per acre in 2000 and such increase is deposited in 2001-02.
The loser is forced to fight at least in two courts to get the compensation commensurate with the market value of Rs 1.5 lakh per acre. To add to his woes, the government does not pay the increased amount immediately and drives him to execution proceedings. This means that the land owner gets compensation piecemeal, that is Rs 50,000 an acre in 1993, another Rs 50,000 in 1997-98, and yet another ‘instalment’ in 2001-02. At every stage he has to incur expenses for litigation. As the landowner does not get full compensation in one lump sum, he is not in a position to buy alternative land.
“When the land is acquired, he loses his means of livelihood, as he knows no other type of work. The result is, he is forced to spend the compensation received on sustenance of his family when he fights the legal battles for increasing the compensation and recovering the increases granted,” the Supreme Court said. At the end of it all, he is hardly left with any money to buy alternative land and by then the prices of land would have also increased manifold.
“Illiteracy, ignorance, and lack of counselling add to his woes and the piecemeal compensation is dissipated leaving him with neither land, nor money to buy alternative land, nor any means of livelihood. In short, he is stripped of his land and livelihood,” according to the court.
The Supreme Court makes further indictments against the governments. Most acquisitions relate to land held by small farmers. The authorities seldom make reasonable offers, forcing the landowner to resort to protracted and debilitating litigation. The courts are conservative in estimating the market value. Even the court orders are not implemented for a long time and payments are made periodically. The court concludes, after a study of several cases, that “land acquisitions lead to great tragedy and ruination of poor families.”
The judgement suggests some solutions. It emphasises the need for negotiated settlement in the award of compensation and the development schemes for the land, the court decisions should be implemented immediately, appeals should not be filed mechanically, avenues for rehabilitation by way of employment, housing, investment opportunities and identification of alternative lands must be explored and implemented.
Land acquisitions have been studied and criticised from the ivory towers, while there has been bloodshed down below. The present judgement of the Supreme Court gives a rare view from the experience of the judiciary. This would be a valuable input when the law-makers ever sit down to redraw the roadmaps after the coming general elections.
