The national debate on a land acquisition law has largely focused on the central legislation. However, states have their own laws on town planning and development, which ignore the concerns expressed in the context of land acquisition. How these state laws are implemented at the local level is another sordid story. The Supreme Court has unveiled this aspect in appeals moved by land owners from different states and censured the governments. The latest such judgment was delivered in a set of appeals from Chhattisgarh, moved by villagers against their land taken over purportedly for a housing project flouting constitutional provisions.
The villagers had challenged the acquisition in the high court two times, but their petition and appeal were dismissed. Only when they came to the Supreme Court, the enormity of the illegality was revealed. Quashing the high court judgments, which upheld the take-over, the apex court said: "A faulty town development scheme prepared through incompetent authorities with blatant violation of legal and environmental procedure cannot be the reason for deprivation of constitutional rights of the land owners."
In this case, Rajendra Shankar vs State of Chhattisgarh, the Raipur Development Authority (RDA) planned a township. It took over 416 acres to start with. In 20 days, 1,900 acres were added without following procedures and illegally changed land use. There was "clear bias and self-interest", as according to the court, the officer who managed it acted first as the chief executive officer of the RDA and immediately thereafter, he himself approved it wearing the hat of special secretary in the housing department. The judgment commented: "This court has on many occasions, mentioned the bare minimum requirement of trust and fairness by the state that should ensure its people in running of the government." It quoted in this context William Pitt who said that where laws end, tyranny began.
The acquisition also flouted the constitutional provisions granting power to local people and authorities to have a say in the matter. "Once the Constitution provides for democratically elected bodies for local self-government, a nominated body like RDA cannot assume the role of an elected body and consequently usurp the power of the local authority in framing development schemes and subsequently altering the size and use of land," the Supreme Court said.
The Ministry of Environment has put Raipur in the 'severely polluted' list. However, in this case, the authorities bypassed the environment clearance regulations. The mandatory clearance has to be given by the central government, but it was not done for this township plan.
These are some of the gross violations of constitutional and local laws. The acquisition was struck down, pointing out six glaring illegalities. This is not the story of Raipur alone. Similar cases have come from other states. The recent case of Bondu Ramaswamy vs Bangalore Development Authority is akin to the Raipur case. The authority acquired land in excess of the need and deleted some parts allegedly at the instance of influential persons. Assailing such attitude by statutory authorities, the judgment said: "A development authority should either provide orderly development or should stay away from development. It cannot act like unscrupulous private developers/colonisers attempting development of small bits of land with only profit motive."
In Laxman Lal vs State of Rajasthan, the court narrated the long ignoble history of a project and remarked: "The strong arm of the government is not meant to be used nor it should be used against a citizen in appropriating the property against his consent without giving him right to file objections on any ostensible ground."
Such judgments show that land acquisition is not entirely safe in the hands of the states. There are several state laws which deal with slum clearance, town planning and infrastructure development. They are often outdated and even flout the central law in the name of 'public purpose' and 'urgency'. The state laws provide additional loopholes, which can confound the courts. In the latest case, the high court had rejected the pleas of the land owners of Raipur villages, but the Supreme Court found that the acquisition was riddled with constitutional flaws. Unless there is uniformity and clarity in legislation, nit-picking and judicial errors will cause delays in implementation of projects and generate social unrest.
Disclaimer: These are personal views of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect the opinion of www.business-standard.com or the Business Standard newspaper
