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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The 2007 Bills had sought to reduce the extent of land acquisition by the state for a company to 30 percent , if the company purchases 70 per cent of the land needed by negotiation. The present Bill doesaway with the 70:30 formula, but provides for ‘partial' acquisition by the state for a company if a companyso requests. Presumably ‘partial' acquisition could go up to near-full acquisition by the state. This seemsa retrograde step. (v) Private purchase: As for private negotiation, the Minister himself refers in hisForeword to the “asymmetry of power (and information) between those wanting to acquire the land andthose whose lands are being acquired”, but the Bill provides no mechanism to reduce that asymmetry. Itdoubtless extends the R&R provisions to private negotiated purchases of land but provides no safeguardagainst unfair negotiation. (Even the extension of the R&R provisions to negotiated purchases — thelegality of which may be challenged — applies only where a company buys 100 acres or more, and thatthreshold can be easily side-stepped in ways that need not be spelt out here.) One wishes that theMinister had strengthened the hands of the weaker party in the negotiation by providing — this is merelyan illustration — that the compensation that the land-owners would have got under this Bill if the land hadbeen acquired by the government (to be determined by the collector) would be the floor below which theprice negotiated by the company with the land-owners shall not fall. (vi) Change of land use: Thatsafeguard might ensure a fair price, but there is also the question of transfer of agricultural land to nonagriculturaluse and the implications for food security. One possibility might be to say that all acquisition ofland, including acquisitions for companies, must be only by the state; but that does not seem desirableand, in any case, it is not really an answer to the problem of land-transfer away from agriculture. Anotherpossibility is that private purchases of agricultural land should be subject to state regulation from the pointof view of land-use. That might be open to the objection of undue interference with a landowner's right tosell his land. On the whole, the answer to the question of minimising transfers of agricultural land to nonagriculturaluse might lie in policies supportive of agriculture rather than in control or regulation over landtransactions. (vii) Definition of ‘public purpose': An issue that has persistently figured in the debate duringthe last decade or two is the need to narrow the definition of ‘public purpose' and limit it to a few strictlygovernmental purposes (schools, dispensaries, etc). The present Bill moves in exactly the oppositedirection. It defines ‘public purpose' very broadly and leaves it to the bureaucracy to decide each case. Isit right to assume that any industry ipso facto serves a public purpose warranting the alienation ofagricultural land? For instance, in the Singur episode land acquisition was for ‘industry', i.e., Tatas' smallcar factory; was that ‘public purpose'? It can be so declared under the present Bill. Again, ‘infrastructure'includes ‘tourism', which would permit the acquisition of land for building hotels. It seems desirable todefine ‘public purpose' somewhat more stringently. (viii) Coverage of ‘project-affected persons': The Billrefers to loss of primary livelihoods but links it to the acquisition of land. The term ‘livelihoods' is illustratedby a reference to the gathering of forest produce, hunting, fishing, etc; there is no reference to sellers ofgoods and services to the people in the project area, who will lose their livelihoods when the peoplewhom they serve move away to resettlement areas. It is not clear whether they will be regarded asproject-affected persons. (ix) Social Impact Assessment: On Social Impact Assessment the present Bill isan improvement on the 2007 Bill, but the idea of SIA still falls short: it does not cover the disappearanceof a whole way of life; the dispersal of close-knit communities; the loss of a centuries-old relationship withnature; the loss of roots; and so on. It is good that the SIA will be reviewed by an independent multidisciplinaryexpert body, but it should first be prepared by a similar body. The Bill leaves the SIA to beprepared by the “appropriate government.” (x) Rehabilitation package: The rehabilitation package isdistinctly inferior to the packages already established in certain projects. The principle of ‘land for land'has been abandoned. It figures only in the case of irrigation projects, and there the Bill envisages oneacre per family instead of two acres as in the Sardar Sarovar Project. There are two points here. First, it isnot clear why the Bill specifies irrigation projects; hydroelectric projects and flood control also have thesame impacts as irrigation projects, and in any case many projects are ‘multi-purpose' projects. Secondly,compensation and rehabilitation should have reference not to the nature of the project but to the nature ofthe impact. Whatever be the project, if an agricultural community is uprooted from its land andhomestead, it has to be enabled to practise agriculture elsewhere, and not expected to becomecarpenters or weavers or traders. (xi) Other matters: A number of officials and institutions are specified inthe Bill, such as the Collector, Administrator of R&R, Commissioner of R&R, etc., but it is only in the R&RCommittee that there is a significant non-official presence. The National Monitoring Committee is not‘participatory'; apart from officials, it includes only a few experts. As indicated earlier, the idea of aNational Rehabilitation Commission has been abandoned. Incidentally, it is not clear why displacement by
natural calamities should be brought within the purview of this Bill. There is a vital difference betweenunavoidable displacement caused by nature and deliberate displacement caused by human decisions.Summing up, the Bill seems to be essentially driven by a desire to make land acquisition forindustrialisation and urbanisation easier. It is clear that the Bill, which does contain many good features,nevertheless requires substantial improvement. (The Hindu: Opinion 18/8/11)High Court mulls if Singur land be an public interest case (4)Kolkata, Aug 16: Can the land in Singur, taken over by the West Bengal government from Tata Motors fordistribution to unwilling farmers be classified as a step in public interest, Justice Indra PrasannaMukherjee of Calcutta high court asked the Advocate General Anindya Mitra on Wednesday. JusticeMukherjee is hearing the case after Justice Soumitra Pal rescued himself from the case citing personalground. Mr Mitra, opposing the lawsuit before the bench, said that the state government's move to takeback the land from Tata Motors by invoking the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011,was for the '' public purpose.'' Echoing the similar vein, advocate Kalyan Banerjee, who also defended thegovernment's move saying that the erstwhile Left Front govenment had forcibily acquired the land fromthe unwilling farmers. The govenment enacted the law and took possesion of the land for the interest ofthe ''poor people,'' he said. In a surprising move, Justice Mukherjee on Tuesday asked the AdvocateGeneral Mitra if there was any provision under the provisions of the Singur Land Rehabilitation andDevelopment Act, 2011, to hammer out a settlement on the lawsuit. '' We can always sit together and setthe terms and conditions for the settlement or we can seek arbitration,'' Mr Mitra told the bench. TataMotors' counsel Sidhartha Mitra also echoed the similar sentiment. '' The company has no problem todiscuss a compensation package with the state..'' Tata Motors, in its petition, however, had stated, '' Thepetitioners' losses are around 1,400 crore, which includes investment on the ground that is sought to betaken over the government and various costs and losses.'' The lease agreement between the WestBengal Industrial Development Corporation and Tata Motors had kept the option for compensation open ifthe land was taken back. (New Kerala 19/8/11)Singur land will be used for development, assures West Bengal (4)Kolkata: The West Bengal government on Thursday told the Calcutta High Court that the 600 acresacquired from “willing farmers” in Singur would “undoubtedly” be used for socio-economic development,even though at this stage it was not possible to specify which industry would come up in the 600 acre site.Countering the argument made earlier by Tata Motor's counsel Samaraditya Pal that the Singur LandRehabilitation and Development Act 2011 was not legislated for a public purpose but was in the interestof certain individuals, Advocate-General Anindya Mitra said that the land would be utilised for socioeconomicdevelopment of the State and an “undoubted public purpose.” Mr. Mitra said the land to bereturned to the unwilling farmers was less than 400 acres. He emphasised that “a line must be drawn”between those farmers who remained unwilling throughout the process of land acquisition and those whosaid they were willing after accepting compensation. Mr. Pal had earlier argued that the distinctionbetween willing and unwilling owners was not recognised by the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and that thereturn of land to “unwilling owners” could not be a public purpose. During the day, Mr. Mitra gave adetailed account of the circumstances that led to “the abandonment” of the project in Singur by TataMotors. “We are not saying that Tata Motors had abandoned the project, we are saying that theyabandoned it at Singur,” he said. He quoted from the annual reports of the company to ascertain whenthe transfer of plant and equipment to Sanand in Gujarat had been completed. He noted that besides thecost of Rs. 67 crore for transferring equipment, there was nothing in the company's financial statementsto reflect the Rs. 1,800 crore loss the company claimed it had incurred. (The Hindu 19/8/11)Land bill to be retrospective: Jairam Ramesh (4)New Delhi, Aug 19 : Modifications have been made to the draft land acquisition bill by tightening thedefinition of public purpose and introducing a new clause for its retrospective implementation, RuralDevelopment Minister Jairam Ramesh said Friday. He said the draft land acquisition and rehabilitationand resettlement bill has been sent with modifications for inter-ministerial consultations, and hoped itwould be introduced in the ongoing monsoon session of parliament. "We have circulated a revised draftbill for inter-ministerial consultations on Aug 12. We are hoping that the bill will be introduced in thissession," Ramesh said. The draft bill was placed in public domain for consultations last month. "Somechanges over and above in the bill on the website have been made," Ramesh said. Ramesh said several
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 and 24: eceive any such complaints. Look at
Page 25: Singur case: West Bengal to begin a
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?

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