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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

saying, you know, the modern phase, unless we are sensitive to these issues, we will not be getting a gripon what the emerging phenomenon is," added Ramesh. (New Kerala 7/8/11)UP govt changes law to deny farmers right to reclaim land (4)LUCKNOW: The Uttar Pradesh government on Thursday passed a Bill in the assembly that will preventfarmers from reclaiming their land once it's acquired. The Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning andDevelopment Amendment Bill, 2011 was passed amid protests in the assembly before it was adjournedsine die. The legislation replaces an earlier provision that allowed farmers to reclaim their acquired land ifit remained unused for more than five years. The amendment was passed on the last day of theassembly's monsoon session. The Bill comes amid growing instances of farmers wanting their land backthat has stalled various projects, particularly in Noida. The amendment empowers the government tokeep the unused land as long as it wants. It contradicts the Congress-led UPA government's proposedland acquisition and rehabilitation law that would give farmers the right to reclaim the acquired land lyingunused for five years. Farmers from Gautam Budh Nagar's Nithari, Chaura Sadarpur and Morna filed apetition in Allahabad High Court on Thursday to get back their land acquired in 1976. They wantedaround 1,500 bighas of unused land acquired for urbanization to be returned to them. The HC admittedthe petition and fixed August 17 for hearing the case along with other petitions challenging landacquisition. (Times of India 12/8/11)Relief to SEZ PDFs soon (4)MANGALORE: The Project Displaced Families (PDFs) of Mangalore Special Economic Zone (MSEZ) canheave a sigh of relief as their woes are likely to be over soon, with government deciding to issue agovernment order on the new rehabilitation package. The government order pertaining to theiremployment will come out soon,'' said chief minister DV Sadananda Gowda to TOI. Environment ministerKrishna Palemar said the June 13 special package discussed under his chairmanship will be handed overto the CM on Tuesday. Thereafter the GO will just a week,'' he assured. The process got derailed afterthe June meeting after Bajpe-Permude-Kalavaru Samyukta Hitarakshana Samithi members wanted 60:40representations in favour of direct job seekers lest they would approach the court. Palemar said he hadtold the Samithi find an amicable settlement to the issue discussing it with SEZ PDFs. But since theyhave not got back, I cannot wait forever and will hand over the package details to CM,'' he added. TheSEZ PDFs had ended their 14 day blockade of the corridor road leading to Mangalore SEZ followingannouncement of a new package on June 13. The package will be implemented by the companies threemonths after the Government Order on the amended comprehensive action plan. The samithi'scontention is that direct job seekers who lost land should be given 60% preference while drawing the finalpackage. (Times of India 15/8/11)Acquisition plan back in Halligudi (4)Bagalkot, Aug 15, DHNS: The ghost of land acquisition for the proposed Posco steel plant has returned toHalligudi in the district. Within a few weeks after the agitation against the land acquisition was withdrawnfollowing an assurance by the government not to acquire the land forcefully, Minister for IndustriesMurugesh Nirani on Monday said over 80 per cent of the farmers have given written consent to part withtheir land for the proposed steel unit. He said a final decision on the acquisition would be taken within amonth. A meeting will be held on August 23 with farmers, leaders of the Opposition parties, legislators,Zilla Panchayat members and seers, to discuss the issue of setting up the steel unit, he added. Thefarmers, led by several organisations and pontiffs of various mutts including Annadaneeshwar Swami,had staged a protest for over weeks against the acquisition. The minister said: “The protests were stagedby those who had no stake in the issue.” He reiterated that if not in Halligudi, the steel plant project wouldbe shifted to Bagalkot, Bijapur, Yadgir or Raichur. However, the minister added, the farmers would not beforced to part with their land for any reason. The second edition of the Global Investors’ Meet (GIM) willbe held on July 7, 2012, Nirani said. Warren Buffet, popular as Investment Guru, will be special attractionat the meet. He claimed North Karnataka has bagged 65 per cent of the projects that the investors agreedto set up at the last GIM. The industries have deposited Rs 12,000 crore with the Karnataka IndustrialAreas Development Board (KIADB), he added. Nirani said the government has contemplated a newKIADB Act as the existing polices framed in 1966 have several loopholes. The new policies will bring intransparency and clear confusions over the land acquisition, he added. (Deccan Herald 15/8/11)
Singur case: West Bengal to begin arguments today (4)The West Bengal government will commence its arguments on the petition filed by Tata Motorschallenging the Constitutional validity of the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act 2011 beforethe Calcutta High Court on Wednesday. West Bengal's Advocate General Anindya Mitra will begin hissubmissions before Justice I. P. Mukerji followed by other counsel on the government's panel. Apart frompresenting the State's point of view, the panel is also expected to address queries raised by JusticeMukerji, including whether provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 can be read into the Act and whythe government took possession of the land “within a matter of hours” after Industries Minister ParthaChatterjee had announced that it had come into effect. Samaraditya Pal, counsel for Tata Motors, saidhere on Tuesday that the Act was legislated for “nothing else but acquisition” as was evident in itsprovisions regarding vesting the land with the State, restoring possession and compensation. Mr. Palemphasised that the Act was void because it dealt with acquisition, a matter that appears in theconcurrent list of the Constitution and its provisions were repugnant to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.The assent from the President, which is required when a State law contravenes a Central law on a matterthat appears in the concurrent list, had not been obtained. Mr. Samaraditya Pal had begun hissubmissions before Justice Mukerji on July 28 after Justice Soumitra Pal, who had heard the case tillthen, recused himself. Over the past three weeks, he has challenged both the Constitutional validity of theAct as well as the actions taken by the government even if the Act was considered valid. Mr. SamaradityaPal has argued that the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act 2011 was not legislated for a“public purpose” – a prerequisite for acquisition. He claimed that the Act, which empowered thegovernment to take over the land of the now relocated Tata Nano small car factory in Singur to return aportion of it to “unwilling farmers,” benefited certain individuals – “those persons who had supported theparty [the Trinamool Congress] in the elections.” He had also argued that the distinction made betweenwilling and unwilling farmers in the Act was based on an “absurd and arbitrary concept,” which was notrecognised and was in fact in violation of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. He also emphasised that theSingur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act 2011 did not specify the amount of compensation or theprinciples under which the compensation is to be determined. Providing a detailed account of thedevelopments of June 21, 22 and 23, he said the government had acted in “undue haste” in taking“wrongful and forcible possession” of the land at Singur. (The Hindu 17/8/11)A good Bill that disappoints (4)Ramaswamy R. Iyer: The Land Acquisition and Resettlement and Rehabilitation Bill 2011 seems to bedriven by a desire to make acquisition for industrialisation and urbanisation easier. One started readingthe new Draft National Land Acquisition and Resettlement and Rehabilitation Bill 2011 with expectationsof a great improvement over the 2007 Bills. There are indeed some very good features in the new Bill but,on the whole, one must regretfully report disappointment. Let us see how the Bill deals with some of thekey issues involved. (i) Acquisition of agricultural land: The Bill rules out the acquisition, not of all irrigatedagricultural land, but of multi-cropped irrigated agricultural land. That limited exclusion seems rather halfhearted.(ii) Avoiding or minimising displacement: A serious concern about the trauma of displacementdoes not seem to be the driving force behind the Bill. The principles of ‘no forced displacement' and ‘free,informed prior consent' are not mentioned. (Incidentally, the condition of consent by 80 per cent of theland-owners applies only to land-acquisition by the government for companies including PPP cases, andnot to governmental acquisition for itself. It appears that there has been no dilution at all of ‘eminentdomain'.) There are indeed a number of good provisions relating to displacement (SIA, review of SIA byan Expert Committee, consideration of ‘less displacing alternative', public hearing, etc.), but the finaldecision is that of the bureaucracy. If a statutory clearance is needed for cutting a tree or for causing anenvironmental impact, should it not be required for displacing people? If the National RehabilitationCommission mentioned in the 2007 Bill had been retained, a statutory displacement clearance by it couldhave been prescribed, but the present Bill envisages no such Commission. (iii) Inadequacy ofcompensation: The present Bill increases the compensation amount significantly. This is welcome.Whether the earlier problems of delays and corruption in the payment process will disappear or diminish,remains to be seen. (iv) The acquisition of land by the state for private companies: A view, held by manyfor a long time, is that there is no reason why the state should use its sovereign power to acquire land forprivate companies which are primarily in business for profit and not for conferring benefits on the public.
Page 5 and 6: order. Each kit contains a kitchen
Page 7 and 8: Jharkhand Opposition rejects rehabi
Page 9 and 10: the new location shall only be iden
Page 11: Development, Acquisition, Displacem
Page 14 and 15: a plot of land within the schedule
Page 16 and 17: land acquisition was a major challe
Page 18 and 19: debate on the issue of land acquisi
Page 20: SEZ land use policy flayed (4)The A
Page 23: eceive any such complaints. Look at
Page 27 and 28: natural calamities should be brough
Page 29 and 30: Land issues hit road work (4)Thiruv
Page 31 and 32: The government's land acquisition p
Page 33 and 34: the award (compensation) has not be
Page 35 and 36: 2011 it has been mentioned under Cl
Page 37 and 38: Paradip, Sept. 26: A violent clash
Page 39 and 40: Govt cannot change purpose of acqui
Page 41 and 42: new clause bans change of purpose i
Page 43 and 44: Supreme Court would be taken only a
Page 45 and 46: ‘Land acquisition at market price
Page 47 and 48: India Economic Forum on Monday. Rep
Page 49 and 50: decades for massive acquisition of
Page 51 and 52: the apex court, Tamil Nadu alleged
Page 53 and 54: policy," he demanded. The fresh sti
Page 55: overall cost has already increased

land acquisition/sez & displacement â 2011 - Indian Social Institute

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?

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