)
The new state governments of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, both in a rush to develop infrastructure, were big beneficiaries of the central ordinance. Both have issued a spate of acquisition orders for irrigation, power and other infrastructure projects. The Telangana government is acquiring 500 acres in Medak district to expand a canal network. Andhra is acquiring 400 acres at Gudipally village in Anantpur district for an industrial corridor. In both instances, the government bypassed the consent and social impact assessment provisions. The Andhra government also adopted its own land pooling policy to build its proposed capital. The target was to mobilise nearly 15,000 hectares from farmers.
These recent developments also need to be seen in the context of the then Rajasekhara Reddy government having acquired a little over 100,000 hectares for canals between 2004 and 2009. It awarded liberal compensation and faced little resistance. In one instance, farmers of drought-prone Anantapur district protested that their land was not acquired; the compensation was much higher than the market price. It had state-level negotiating committees and allowed private developers to directly negotiate with owners.
Maharashtra does not have a state-specific law. On Wednesday, Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis was the most vociferous in demanding that states be allowed to frame their own land laws.
In neighbouring Karnataka, acquisition is governed under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, Land Acquisition Act, Bangalore Development Authority and Karnataka Housing Board laws. "We are using the existing Acts. This allows us to acquire land and provide adequate compensation to owners," said Revenue Secretary B Basavaraaju.
The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Act acquires land for industries and has a consent clause. "We haven't had issues acquiring land for industries," said K Ratnaprabha, additional chief secretary. "We have included compensation and consent in our Act. We pay four times the guidance value to farmers and in some cases, it has gone up to 10-20 times."
The Samajwadi Party government in Uttar Pradesh found the 2013 Act cumbersome and approved a new policy in March 2015. This allowed for direct negotiation between sellers and buyers for the 302-km Agra-Lucknow Expressway project, currently under way. The government acquired nearly 3,000 hectares without a major problem.
The Trinamool Congress-led West Bengal government is working on an "alternative" land acquisition policy that will have a 100 per cent consent clause. For non-public purposes, it favours direct negotiation between a buyer and seller. For new townships, it has mandated that 25 per cent of the development be reserved for economically weaker sections.
Gujarat has the most humane acquisition policy. The Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC) policy on acquisition and compensation of 2010 had entrusted fixing of the market price to the Centre for Environmental Planning and Technology University. Farmers would get 10 per cent of the price GIDC gets by selling the land (developed plot) to industries. One per cent holding of the developed plots would be given back to the original land-owning farmer for commercial activities or bought back by GIDC at commercial rates. It also provided for a maximum of an additional 750 days of minimum agricultural wages as part of compensation for loss of livelihood. One person in the age group of 18 and 45 years from each affected family is sponsored for skill training by GIDC.
The state is also contemplating whether to introduce what it calls an "equity model". Landowners would either be made equity partners or provided a regular source of income, as from rental sources. A joint venture company would be formed to buy land from farmers and sell these to industries, at a profit. Farmers or landowners would be partners in this new company.
Rajasthan was the first state which tried to ratify, although with some amendments, the Centre's 2013 Act. The Cabinet cleared the draft of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Bill in September 2014. But the ruling party's legislators stonewalled it in the Assembly. It was referred to a legislature committee, which has given its recommendations. The Cabinet is yet to approve these and introduce a new Bill in the Assembly. The draft Bill suggested no provision for social impact assessment; the state could acquire land for private companies but prior consent of at least 80 per cent people was required; the government can acquire land for public-private partnership projects, excluding infrastructure, where prior consent of at least 60 per cent of the people was required. No consent was needed for core infrastructure projects like roads, pipelines, railways, airports and bridges.
The Punjab government claims to offer a similar "humanitarian" provision in its acquisition policy. The policy has a consent clause and one on social impact assessment. The government offers a waiver on stamp duty and a free tubewell connection to those who sell their land and purchase more again.
Madhya Pradesh, ruled as in Rajasthan by the BJP, has followed the 2013 Act with its consent and social impact assessment clauses. Tamil Nadu, the only state to do so, amended the central law of 2013 to exempt three state-specific laws' application.
This came into effect from January 2014.
Chief Minster J Jayalalithaa has opposed the central ordinance that does away with "important safeguards" for farmers.
IMBROGLIO EXPLAINED
Who has the right to make laws on land acquisition?
According to the Constitution, land acquisition is in the concurrent list, which means both the Centre and the state governments have the right to make laws on how to acquire land and issues related to it, like compensation. Article 254 (2) of the Constitution says any state law which has received the assent of the President will be valid and will continue to stay in force even if it contradicts a central law. As the President consults the Union government on all issues, if the Union approves a state law, it will stay valid.
If that is the case, why was the Centre trying to impose a central law on the states?
It is possible that the Centre believed in matters relating to land acquisition, there should be one uniform law across India.
So, what will be in force now? The 2013 law on acquisition or the ordinance which superseded it? Where do the states stand?
The previous United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government passed a law. To make it more industry friendly, the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government decided to amend it via an ordinance and later as a Bill. The ordinance is still in force. Until it lapses - that is when the government fails or decides not to repromulgate it - it will have legal validity. It is not clear whether the government wants to keep it in force or let it lapse. If it lapses, naturally the 2013 law will be in force. In the meantime, all actions taken under the ordinance have full legal validity.
As far as the states are concerned, they are free to pass their own laws relating to acquiring private property for roads, highways or anything else they think fit.
If some states still go by the 1894 law to acquire private property, those decisions will continue to be in force. If others have adopted the 2013 law, that will be in force.
The thinking behind the government's latest move might be to induce competition among the states to make laws investor-friendly, making it easier for investors to acquire land. We have to see how that plays out.
If the National Highways Authority of India, for example, wants to acquire land for a project, it will have to pay compensation and conduct a social impact assessment according to the procedures and terms described in the ordinance. On the other hand, if a state government wants to acquire private land for a state highway, it will pay compensation according to the terms of the law prevailing in the state.
