While the new land acquisition law and ordinance are agitating the nation, the Supreme Court has been quietly clearing hundreds of cases relating to the issue in the past three months. The bench of the Chief Justice brought the records from the storeroom and disposed of them, as if to clear the way for litigation under the new law.
There are lessons for the future from these dog-eared files. Some of the acquisitions were two decades old, like Union of India vs Ram Lal (1989) or Patel Punajbhai vs N. Gujarat University (1987). The landowners trudge a long way to reach the apex court. They move the 'reference court' to begin with, then the high court and lastly, the Supreme Court. There are reviews in between and at the end. The longest pause is at the high court level, sometimes running to a decade. The Supreme Court takes five years on an average.
By the time the appeals reach the Supreme Court, some landowners might have bequeathed their cases to their heirs. It shows in the title of cases such as, Land Acquisition Officer vs Krishnayya (DEAD), which was lying in the Supreme Court since 2007. New acquisitions could also be caught in such debilitating litigation. The government, therefore, must realise the perils of neglecting legal infrastructure and underestimating the shrewdness of the legal profession.
Sitting through the hearings in the land acquisition appeals revealed the soft underbelly of the law. The rate of compensation was one of the bitter points of contention. The collector's estimate is invariably upset by the high courts, which hike the compensation. After a decade or so, the Supreme Court awards a still higher package, often as bequest to the legal representatives.
Assessment of the value is bedevilled by numerous vague norms. The size of the plot, its nearness to the developed areas, the rate at which the adjacent lands were sold to private parties, whether arid or fertile, the future value after development, purpose of the proposed project, the jump in price of land after the acquisition notification - these are only some of the criteria set by the Supreme Court to arrive at the correct amount of compensation. All these are lush ground for litigation, as could be seen in the past weeks in the Supreme Court.
As if these are not enough, the government bungles almost at every point. Notifications are allowed to lapse, the proposed project is confined to the limbo and a fresh notification is issued by a new government, starting a new round of litigation. Politics and vested interests interfere to prolong the harassment of the landowners. Environment impact assessment is a new factor. Often, that objection is bulldozed, as in the case of the new capital for Andhra Pradesh.
Then there are other irritants such as the lack of proper land records, an area neglected by state governments. There is a mind-boggling array of terms used to refer to units of land. In a recent judgment, Doongar Singh vs State of Punjab, the land acquired in 1992 for Guru Nanak thermal plant was measured in nehri, chahi and barani. Then there were gair mumkin lands. Somewhere during the decades of litigation, the measurements turned into kanals and marlas. From Bengal comes terms such as cottahs and chhitacks. The judges have to grapple with such curiosities from all parts of the country.
Those who observed land acquisition litigation would tend to think the new law would not be free from the same treatment at the hands of landowners, unless government action is fair and just - a tall order. The legal challenges could involve issues starting from vague definitions (see how 'public interest' and 'urgency' clauses spawned thousands of petitions), rate of compensation and arbitrariness of the authorities.
The constitutionality of the law itself is waiting to be challenged as soon as it comes into force. Interim orders and injunctions by civil courts could stall projects, unless the legal system itself is helped to deliver speedy justice. If the dysfunctional judicial machinery, long neglected by the government, stands in the way of development, it could only be called comeuppance.
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
