Irrigated land cannot be acquired even if it is less than 100 acres, Rural Development Minister Jairam Ramesh tells Sreelatha Menon
The R&R in the new draft Land Acquisition Bill has been praised, but critics say the land acquisition process has been made so easy that it is almost regressive...
Quite the contrary. Not only has the purpose for acquisition been restricted but additional safeguards — both administrative and quasi judicial — have been introduced. Besides, a new, comprehensive and elaborate pre-acquisition process has been introduced. So, even before the acquisition begins, the government concerned has to ensure that a social impact assessment is carried out. A special high-level committee then determines whether the cause of acquisition satisfies the public purpose criterion.
Additionally, under the old Act, acquisition was usually carried out by invoking the urgency clause, regardless of whether or not an urgency existed in the true sense of the word. The redrafted new Act has restricted the urgency clause to very specific cases, such as defence, national security and natural calamities, etc.
Since the new Act legitimises acquisition by private companies, land acquisitions in Singur and by Posco will all become legitimate. How does it help the land owners who do not want to part with their land?
Again, the law marks a departure from the previous regime, since it requires the government concerned, before it initiates acquisitions for private parties (albeit for a public purpose), to determine whether 80 per cent of those to be affected have given their consent through a pre-informed process. The acquisition can be initiated only after this consent is obtained.
So far as the cases initiated under the old law are concerned, those will not be automatically legitimised under the new law. Instead, those will have to conform to the rigorous procedures and safeguards in the new law, or, if acquisitions have been pending beyond a certain timeframe, those will have to ensure the acquired land is returned to original owners.
According to the draft, land would be returned if it is not used for five years. So, would this also cover the acquisitions made by the government?
Yes. There is no exception to this rule. However, land acquired for one public purpose can be transferred to another legitimate public purpose.
Will the law have any say in ongoing land disputes?
The draft is being amended to be enforced with retrospective effect. It will be on the basis of a cut-off stage of land acquisition, not a cut off date.
Definition of public purpose virtually includes everything — malls, apartments, roads, highways et al. So what is private purpose?
The definition of public purpose includes the provision of land for infrastructure, industrialisation and urbanisation projects of appropriate governments where the benefits largely accrue to the general public.
This disqualifies such purposes as “malls” or other enterprises that are for the intended benefit of a small, niche demographic. Also, these clauses have to be construed ejusdem generis, which means only causes “of the same kind” can be invoked as falling under the doctrine of public purpose.
The draft continues to uphold the concept of eminent domain in spite of the fact that all these years the government’s ownership of all land has been used to take away of deprive the poor of livelihood sources. How do you justify eminent domain?
Eminent Domain is a judicial doctrine that recognises that the government has the right to acquire the land available within its domain in times of war or for other public purposes. Any legislation providing for the acquisition of private property for public purpose will invoke the spirit of this doctrine, regardless of whether on not it says so expressly. However, the difference between the application of the doctrine under this Act and its predecessors is the limitation imposed upon the scope through the establishment and delineation of additional administrative safeguards.
Why is the government not required to seek the consent of 80 per cent people before it acquires land?
We are making changes in the draft so that the government also has to seek consent, except in the case of defence and internal security requirements.
Can the government acquire agricultural land? Can agricultural land be acquired if it is less than 100 acres?
The Bill imposes a categorical restriction on the acquisition of irrigated and multi-crop agricultural land. This restriction is regardless of area size.
The draft is silent on change in land use. Should that be allowed?
Under this Bill, land is intended to be used for the purpose it is acquired. This implies that a change of use would be considered a fraudulent activity (unless it is for a legitimate purpose of a similar nature).
The decision on public purpose is to be taken by a group of officers, while democratic bodies like gram sabhas and municipalities are not being consulted. Why?
The determination of whether the acquisition is indeed for a ‘public purpose’ is preceded by a comprehensive social impact assessment, in consultation with Gram Sabhas. This is then vetted by an expert committee comprising two non-official social scientists, two experts on rehabilitation and a technical expert in the area relating to the project. Additionally, the committee reviewing the ‘public purpose’ can have representatives from democratic bodies.
Many farmers organisations have pointed out that the freedom to acquire land up to 100 acres without government intervention would wipe out small farmers. Many states have set the ceiling at 16 acres. What is the rationale?
Given that the legislative subject is in the concurrent list, states are free to limit the parameters as long as they do not violate the spirit of the Act.
The draft is silent on any process to examine the exact proportion of land required.
Incorrect. Section 3(1)(e) categorically states that social impact assessment, the very first process under the new Bill, shall include an enquiry into the question of “whether extent of land proposed for acquisition is the absolute bare minimum extent needed for the project”.
How can the mandatory employment provision be substituted with just Rs 2 lakh?
In cases where the offer of employment is not possible, the Bill provides for an alternative. Additionally, this figure cannot be seen in isolation but must be reviewed in the context of the many additional entitlements being given. Besides, this amount is subject to revision, depending on feedback received.
Many farmer groups have felt that the Rs 2,000 and Rs 3,000 offered as compensation per month is too little for a family and is worse than the wages under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme.
These amounts (being the subsistence allowance and the annuity granted) are not wages. There are grants that are being given as part of the R&R package and are not in lieu of any services to be provided. Besides, the annuity amounts (and other continuing amounts) are to be adjusted for inflation annually.
