land acquisition/sez & displacement – 2011 - Indian Social Institute

land acquisition was a major challenge for irrigation projects throughout the country. The CWC wantedthe State governments to expedite land acquisition either by modifying legislation related to landacquisition or by appointing an exclusive land acquisition officer to monitor the process. Speaking on theoccasion, CWC Chairman and Ex-officio Secretary to Union Government A. K. Bajaj expressed concernthat rapid urbanisation and growth in population had posed a challenge to the availability of quality water.Most of the water available in the country was unfit for drinking as well as irrigation purposes unless itwas treated, he said. The per capita availability of water, which stood around 5,000 cubic metres in 1950had now reduced to the range of 1,500-1,600 cubic metres. This was expected to dip to about 1,000cubic metres in the coming years, he said. Karnataka Water Resources Principal Secretary D. SathyaMurthy and Secretary B. G. Gurupadaswamy spoke on the occasion . (Hindu, 05/07/2011)Land Acquisition Act has become an engine of oppression: courtThe Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed concern over misuse of the Land Acquisition Act, a coloniallaw, by all States to acquire land from farmers for development in the guise of a ‘public purpose'. A Benchof Justices G.S. Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly said that in the name of globalisation and land developmentthe States had marginalised farmers by paying a pittance as compensation. The Bench was hearing abatch of appeals against an Allahabad High Court order, which quashed the notifications for landacquisition in Greater Noida. The Bench made it clear that it would not stay the High Court order andwould hear the parties concerned. When senior counsel P.P. Rao, appearing for one of the builders, saidresidential complexes were being constructed for the needy, Justice Ganguly asked: “Do you think judgeslive in a fool's paradise? Look at your own brochure. It is saying about swimming pool, spa, tennis court,badminton court, beauty parlour, Ayurvedic massage, etc. All these are for poor people? Land is given fordevelopment which must be inclusive. The State is taking advantage of the law against the poor. Asinister campaign is made by various State governments. The State is doing a totally anti-people thing.”Justice Ganguly said: “The purpose of the land acquisition was being defeated. The poorest man insociety should benefit in the public interest but you [State] are responding in such a way that the poor aredriven out.” Justice Singhvi questioned the Uttar Pradesh government's rationale in changing land use inGreater Noida from industrial to residential purposes within 11 days. Though the State had the power tochange land use, in this case it was done in a hurry, he said. Justice Ganguly, expressing his anguish,said, “What farmers get are lathis and litigation. Men are arrested and women are raped. In the name ofglobalisation poor people are marginalised; why are terrorist activities increasing? Why so many peoplecommit suicide? They are pushed to the wall. [The] Land Acquisition Act has become an engine ofoppression for the common man. You [State] have virtually demolished every area for the benefit of aparticular society for which you work.” “There is greater danger to society. They take to crime. Once youtake away the land, you deprive the next five generation of farmers of their livelihood.” (Hindu,06/07/2011)Are hotels, malls for needy, SC asks up govtThe Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the Mayawati government for changing the “land use” plan ofthree greater Noida plots, the acquisition of which from the farmers was quashed by the Allahabad highcourt after finding it illegal. During the inconclusive hearing on the petition of several real estate firmsallotted the land and also of the UP government, a bench of Justices G.S. Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly putsome probing questions to the state’s counsel on the change of land use plan within 11 days of theacquiring the land from the farmers and invoking of the “urgency” clause under the Land Acquisition Act(LAA). As senior advocate P.P. Rao, appearing for the state, argued that the land use plan form industrialdevelopment to housing was changed as no industry was ready to come to the area, the bench said thisis nothing but a “sinister campaign” and even the “horse would laugh at your theory.” The top courtpointed out that the land was acquired in 2009 for industrial development Invoking the clauses of “publicpurpose” and “urgency” under the LAA in the name of development. “The development should have somemeaning. State is taking advantage of this law. This is sinister campaign taken by several stategovernments. It is anti-people,” the court said taking tough stand against invoking of “urgency” clause atthe drop of the hat in land acquisition matters. The court questioned the state government’s claim that thechange of “land use” plan for housing was also for public purpose as the houses would be provided forneedy people. “Please answer our queries. Whose land is acquired and who are the needy people andfor whom are the houses being built? Are the builders building for needy people.. Do you think judges areliving in a fool’s paradise? What are the costs of these houses?” the bench demanded. The court said the