If there is one special law on which the Supreme Court laboured most in the past quarter, it was the Land Acquisition Act. A variety of disputes continue to reach the court from across the country, especially villages around urban centres. Even as farmers and police fought on the streets in Gautam Budh Nagar near the capital last week, the court passed a lengthy judgment in a case arising from the same town.
The significance of the judgment in the case, Sri Radhy Shyam vs State of Uttar Pradesh, lies in the fact that the court traversed the nettlesome provisions of the colonial law and the court’s interpretations in some past judgments to formulate nine principles. If the acquisition authorities want to avoid further confrontation with landowners, they should follow these guidelines.
The facts of the case are similar to what we have come to expect in such matters these days. The government declares that certain agricultural lands are “urgently” required for industrial development. Because of the purported urgency, the landowners’ right to present their objections is done away with. Since landowners are usually not aware of their rights and cannot deftly assert them, they are offered compensation below the market value. The land is then transferred to industrialists. One can pick and choose the land selected for acquisition. Lands belonging to politicians are deftly avoided in the acquisition map. All these vicious elements converged in the present case.
When some of the affected farmers went to the Allahabad High Court protesting against the arbitrary and discriminatory action by the government, their petitions were dismissed at the threshold, in a cryptic judgment. The court did not even issue notice to the government to answer the charges pressed by the farmers. According to the high court, the farmers’ petitions were not supported by records and the affidavits were faulty. The court did not find it fit to ask the authorities to produce the records for examination, though they were available.
The Supreme Court recorded its severe disapproval of the high court’s conduct. It said when the property owners made grave allegations and “succeeded in making out a strong case for deeper examination of the issues, the high court committed a serious error by summarily dismissing them”. It should have asked the government to produce the records, thus taking a liberal view of the matter and avoiding legal technicalities. In most cases, farmers “reconcile” with the deprivation of land and accept whatever compensation they get, “thinking that it is their fate and destiny determined by God”.
Chastising the high court and the government, the Supreme Court said: “It is too much to expect from the rustic villagers, who are not conversant with the intricacies of law and functioning of the judicial system to first obtain relevant information and records from the state authorities and then present skilfully drafted petitions for enforcement of their rights.” In such a situation, the judiciary must not act as a mere umpire but should become an active catalyst in the constitutional scheme, the judgment said.
In several cases, the Supreme Court has found that the urgency for acquisition claimed by the government was a sham, a device to skirt the rule for giving owners a hearing. The acquisition proceedings are preceded by careful planning over the years and it takes several years to implement projects. If the government wanted to respect the rights of the land losers, there would be enough time to hear them and give good value for their property. But in case after case, the extraordinary power of dispensing with fair procedure is invoked only to defeat the landowners’ rights.
Considering these and many other dubious practices, the court laid down the nine guidelines for the acquisition authorities. These include, among others, the sovereign right of eminent domain should be used only in case of public exigency; laws for a compulsory takeover of property are of an expropriatory nature and should be interpreted strictly; when the landowners belong to weaker sections and would lose their livelihood, courts should scrutinise the state action with greater vigilance; merely citing “public purpose” would not entitle the state to use emergency provisions; and if the acquisition is for the benefit of private people the court should look at the deal with “suspicion”.
Lawmakers in India have been tinkering with a new Bill to replace the existing 116-year-old Land Acquisition Act but the effort has gone off the radar screen amid the general miasma enveloping the polity now. Until a new law is put in place, courts alone can act as guardians of landed property. If they also fail, as in the present case at the high court level, disputes will be decided on the streets.
