Wednesday, August 29, 2012

Critical Analysis of Proposed amended Bill on Land Acquisition

Opinions that Supporting the Bill:

Acquiring Land:

There are arguments that since capital and labour are not acquired forcefully then neither should land. The argument seems valid on the face of it but land, unlike capital and labour, is not fungible. In other words, land is finite and immovable. Land for local needs cannot be substituted by the acquisition of land elsewhere. To illustrate; if a road has to be built to connect two towns then land at another location cannot be acquired for this purpose. To take such decisions the State, which is the ultimate arbitrator of public good, has to be vested with the power of eminent domain
At the same time, it is important to also acknowledge the myriad ways in which the doctrine of eminent domain as present in the 1894 law is sought to be significantly attenuated in the proposed new law. The State must have a role in acquisition given that land markets are highly imperfect in India and given that there are huge power and information asymmetries between the buyers and sellers of land.

No acquisition of agricultural land:

The argument for a complete ban on the acquisition of agricultural land without distinctions as to single or multi-crop is not a feasible suggestion as such a sweeping provision will create insurmountable obstructions to growth and development particularly in rural areas. Discretionary power provisions, especially in a law that can only be repealed by Parliament, have to be drafted with caution and in a manner that accommodates need for future growth of the area in question.

Each State in India faces unique development challenges and as several States represented before the Standing Committee, many of them regard industrialization as a key element of their strategy to generate employment. Keeping this in mind, the new Bill retains the restriction on acquisition of agricultural land but leaves the exact limits to be determined by each State in line with its own development priorities.

The Bill also makes it clear that acquisition of multi-crop land is only to be undertaken as a last resort and under “exceptional circumstances.” Furthermore if such land is indeed earmarked for acquisition then an equal plot of alternative land has to be delineated for agricultural purposes. In addition, the Bill provides for States to impose ceilings on such acquisitions taking place within the district as a unit.

Public purpose:

Not only does the new Bill define public purpose comprehensively it also qualifies it by establishing processes whereby such “public purpose” needs to be clearly and compellingly validated. The Social Impact Assessment Process is one where all those affected (including those whose livelihood has been impacted), including representatives from Panchayati Raj Institutions, are invited to deliberate as to whether public purpose is indeed served by such acquisition.

This is then vetted by an independent expert group and finally pronounced upon by the high level committee headed by the Chief Secretary of a State. These safeguards are compounded by the high quorum of consent required (80 per cent). None of these processes exist under the 1894 Act.

Rehabilitation:

It is given the guarantee that none of those individuals whose land has been acquired shall be dispossessed unless alternatives, as enumerated in the Bill, are provided for (Section 37). No such protection, enshrined in a statute, has ever been afforded earlier.

Over five chapters and two entire Schedules have been dedicated to outlining elaborate processes for resettlement and rehabilitation. The Second Schedule in particular outlines the benefits (such as land for land, housing, employment and annuities) that shall accrue in addition to the one-time cash payments.


Opinions that against the Bill:

The Bill proposed by the Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD) is clinging on to a colonial legacy. The consent of the gram Sabhas, the community and people should be the precondition before any natural resource, land or mineral, is acquired.

Public purpose has been poorly defined “in a manner worse than in the British Act
Let the community put forth its vision and plan as per Article 243 of the Constitution; what is completely unacceptable is for the government to acquire land for private and PPP projects.

Saving agricultural land for food security and for the livelihood of crores in this country is a must for our survival.There should be complete ban on the acquisition of agricultural land without distinctions as to single or multi-crop.

The Bill is especially weak on rehabilitation. It suggests that “only cash” is being offered to ameliorate the impacts of acquisition and adds that “cash was offered by the British as well.

The rehabilitation provided by the Bill is certainly not fair, nor adequate for an alternative livelihood. Cash being no option, land for land as provided in the 2007 policy is also not in the amended bill. How can the government not have enough land for rehabilitation, when it can and does purchase thousands of acres of land for private corporations and entities? Also, why is no one talking about rehabilitation of those already displaced? Make the law applicable with retrospective effect and include all other Acts with the “acquisition” clause under the new Act.

The present Bill has gone through certain improvements based on our critique and the recommendations of the Standing Committee, yet it falls far short of what is required to protect natural and human resource-based communities and uphold truly democratic development planning. This is the view of the masses, not the corporate.

No comments:

Post a Comment