A contradiction in terms

After wide-ranging consultations lasting for more than two years, the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government succeeded in getting Parliament to pass—and enthusiastically at that—a new land acquisition law last year. The debate in both Houses of Parliament—on 29 August 2013 in the Lok Sabha and on 5 September 2013 in the Rajya Sabha—drew participation of many members from all political parties and is widely acknowledged to be one of the best in recent times.

The 2013 law completely replaced the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which was a draconian piece of legislation that inflicted huge injustices on farmers particularly in the name of development. It was this law that was behind numerous protest movements and agitations across the country against forcible land acquisition or land acquisition that favoured industry and developers. It is true that it had been amended twice in 1962 and 1984, but the basic architecture and framework (scaffolding is more like it) never changed, leading to widespread discontent.

The very title of the new legislation—The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency on Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013—suggests that compensation and resettlement and rehabilitation are rights, and not land acquisition under the garb of eminent domain. Since January, the Supreme Court has upheld the new law, especially the provisions relating to its retrospective application, in four separate judgements.

The new law provides for vastly enhanced compensation for landowners as well as for livelihood losers who most frequently are the landless. It makes rehabilitation and resettlement an essential aspect of land acquisition and also allows for farmers to have a share of the appreciation in land value. If the land acquired is not utilized, it reverts back either to a land bank or to the original owner. In Schedule V (tribal) areas, consent of the gram sabha is essential prior to land acquisition. The scope of the notorious “urgency clause” has been severely circumscribed and confined only to situations arising out of national security considerations and natural disasters.

Both the finance minister and the minister of rural development have announced that they are in favour of amending the new law. Specifically, it appears that the consent clause that provides for land acquisition for private companies only after written permission of farmers will be diluted and the mandatory social impact assessment prior to land acquisition in order to judge its essentiality and in order to identify both land and livelihood losers will be dropped.

The consent clause was always contentious. There were many who argued that the government must have no role whatsoever in acquiring land for private or public-private partnership (PPP) projects, whatever be their purpose. This was not just the view of activists and non-governmental organizations. Many members of Parliament (MPs) cutting across political parties, too, held a similar view. Indeed, the standing committee of Parliament concerned also supported this view in its final report. This committee was headed by senior BJP leader Sumitra Mahajan, who is now speaker of the Lok Sabha. There were others who believed that given the nature of our land records and given the clout of “land mafias”, the government must have a decisive role in land acquisition. The Act adopts a middle path—acquisition for private sector projects can take place only after 80% of the farmers have given their written consent, with the consent requirement being 70% for PPP projects.

Time schedules for the social impact assessment to be completed have been incorporated in the legislation. If there is unanimity that land should never be acquired under duress, then why should there be any opposition to the social impact study? Such a study is nothing but a transparent, public process whereby a systematic enquiry is made whether the acquisition is even necessary to begin with and whether other alternatives have been considered or not. Can it be denied that in a land-deficit country and in a country where land is the only form of social security for millions of families, we have been profligate in the acquisition of land, acquiring land hugely in excess of what is actually needed?

As far as the states are concerned, the new law was introduced and approved taking recourse to the fact that in our Constitution, land acquisition is in the Concurrent List ( Entry 42 in List III of the Seventh Schedule). This means that the provisions of the central law establish the baseline and the states are free to make them more progressive and generous. They are free to decide on the sliding scale of enhanced compensation (between four times in rural areas and twice in urban areas). States are the arbiters of whether land should be acquired, purchased or leased. This was, in fact, an amendment suggested by the then leader of the opposition in the Lok Sabha, Sushma Swaraj herself, which was also supported by the then leader of the opposition in the Rajya Sabha, Arun Jaitley. The states are also free to decide on the extent to which multi-cropped irrigated land should be acquired keeping in mind considerations of food security.

Undoubtedly, we must have accelerated industrialization and urbanization. For this, land is essential. The 2013 law’s motivation is to get industry and developers to purchase land directly. That is the only way land markets will develop in the country. Ironically, for a dispensation that believes in “minimum government”, the government role in acquisition is now being sought to be increased. In August 2013, a Bill to amend the Registration Act, 1908, had been introduced. This will ensure greater accuracy in arriving at land values and also in determining beneficiaries for payment of compensation. Getting this Bill passed and taking forward the initiatives on modernizing land records should be the immediate priority, not dismantling the edifice of the new land acquisition law, a legislation that is truly historic in every sense.

The author is a Rajya Sabha MP and a former Union minister.