Since land is in short supply and they don’t make it anymore, there was a series of disputes over this valued asset in which the Supreme Court passed judgments in the past fortnight. The right of the rural people for grazing cattle, surrender of sugarcane fields above ceiling and space for new townships were some of the subjects of intense discord, which were fought up to the final court by village headmen and corporate giants. Significant among them were two judgments of a constitution bench that settled doubts over town planning laws in some states where they conflicted with the central law, the Land Acquisition Act.
Since smaller benches of the court had doubts over the supremacy of the central and state legislation on acquiring land for building new townships, the constitution bench spent more than 250 pages in its judgment to harmonise the laws so that planned development could continue unhindered by legal complexities. It gave the state laws unfettered play, and only time will tell whether the new-found freedom for the states will serve public good.
The constitution bench discussed the law in the context of new urban centres growing around metros. Development of land in the peripheral areas outside municipal limits is normally irregular and haphazard. Several states have, therefore, passed laws to regulate regional town development. They aim at dispersing population and industry from congested cities and providing adequate public service like schools, hospitals, market and water supply.
The laws are paved with good intentions. But the implementation is often swamped in local politics, vested interests, bureaucratic lethargy and litigation. The lands are hastily notified for development but the development plans take long to be ready. What happens to the landholders whose property has been taken away and the scheme is not implemented? The central law says the acquisition will lapse in such cases after two years. The state laws grant even a decade to attract such a consequence. Which one should be followed was the question before the court. The Maharashtra law was dealt with in the case, Girnar Traders vs State of Maharashtra, and the Karnataka law was considered in the appeal, Offshore Holdings (P) Ltd vs Bangalore Development Authority.
Though the state governments announce development plans, they are not readied with urgency, and this inaction causes landholders harassment. The Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act tried to remedy this situation by amending the law and put a ten-year deadline for implementing the development scheme. If the plan does not take off, the land “reserved, allotted or designated” for the scheme is released to the owner. The Bangalore Development Act sets the limit at five years.
The constitution bench ruled that the central law that provides for a two-year limit would not apply to the state laws, which provide for different time frames and consequences for default, including lapsing of the acquisition proceedings. The state laws are “self-contained codes” and the Land Acquisition Act would not apply to the states’ plans for developing new townships.
The Supreme Court has, therefore, interpreted the laws as they exist, but the consequences on the ground would not be gratifying. If one follows the time line of acquisition proceedings, whether under the central law or the state laws, a glaring fact is the harassment suffered by the land owners. Even the court has recognised in this judgment that, “The pendency of acquisition proceedings for long periods often caused hardship to the affected parties and rendered unrealistic the scale of compensation offered to them.” The Law Commission has also noted this problem and recommended short time limits for completing all formalities between the issue of preliminary notification and the award of compensation. However, disputes of the 1980s continue to come to the Supreme Court.
Even if the acquisition formalities are completed within time, the deadlines set by the state laws to start construction are too long by current standards. This is a time when the country has to run fast to stay where it stands. Spending five or ten years to clear development plans for a new township harks back to the socialistic era with all its entrapments. The central law envisages two years for the completion of the proceedings. But the state laws, which were passed later, instead of reducing the period, have extended it many times over. The advance in technology to build and operate infrastructure has not been recognised by the lawmakers, let alone the snail-paced paper work in public works departments. Despite several amendments to the laws, the provisions as they stand retard the process of town development instead of simplifying it. Medieval Sultans raised magnificent citadels faster.
