Even after much delay over a controversial bill on land acquisitions, the same questions over the extent of required consent and the scope for resettlement and rehabilitation continue to obstruct the creation of a sound law
Even otherwise, it has been observed that the bill has been heavily diluted. “It is extremely unfortunate that putting aside every possible democratic precedent and institutions, progressive pronouncements of the Supreme Court, the UPA government is bringing a law to legitimise forcible acquisitions by the government for private and PPP projects in the name of development,” says Medha Patkar, leader of the National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM). NAPM’s opposition to the bill in its current form, is based on the fact that it fails to accommodate key recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee comprising members from different political parties. The standing committee on land acquisitions has said that no acquisition should be allowed for private and PPP projects. “Small benefits like a house plot to those displaced are being taken away by increasing the time of residence from three years to five years prior to displacement,” said NAPM in September. It further pointed out that a separate legislation on urban evictions and displacement was the only way out.
Reportedly, Jairam had convinced Sonia that the new Bill has the best Resettlement & Rehabilitation (R&R) package as it covers families of all farmers, landless and livelihood losers who have resided in the area for five years or more with a house or one-time financial grant in lieu thereof plus annuity of Rs.2,000 per month per family for 20 years, adjustable to inflation, or employment. However, the UPA chairperson is said to have insisted that the broad contours of the bill drawn up by the National Advisory Council were in public interest and should not be rejected ‘because of lobbying by the vested interests’. Other dilutions in the bill from its earlier form include compensation of four times the land value and not six times as proposed earlier. Land size thresholds on private purchases have also been left to the discretion of states instead of the 100 acre in rural and 50 acre in urban areas decided earlier.
Rajagopal says that the biggest problem with the bill is that it refuses to see the sufferings of the people. “It is more progressive than the first one. But again, it is not a land redistribution bill, it is a land acquisition bill. That is my problem – without considering land redistribution as a major agenda, the government is acquiring land for industry,” he says.
Recently, a group of farmers, who met the rural development minister also sought stringent provisions for acquiring farm land. Disappointed with the watering down of the draft of the bill by the GoM, the farmers who had come together under the banner of Kissan Mahasangh, said that while initially, land owners had given up surplus land to the landless immediately after independence to help establish a social set up with equitable assets and opportunities, it was ironical that laws are being made to facilitate accumulation of thousands of acres of land by private companies and individuals. “Over 300 SEZs have come up on the fertile land of farmers who have not benefited from them in any way. As per the Ministry of Finance the nation has lost over Rs.1.63 trillion in revenues till 2010,” the delegation has claimed. That the delegation has also objected to the acquisition of land for private companies; creation of land pool of unutilised land and leaving the decision of the calculation compensation of land vague, was confirmed by Devinder Seharawat, the co- convener of the Kissan Mahasangh.
Even otherwise, it has been observed that the bill has been heavily diluted. “It is extremely unfortunate that putting aside every possible democratic precedent and institutions, progressive pronouncements of the Supreme Court, the UPA government is bringing a law to legitimise forcible acquisitions by the government for private and PPP projects in the name of development,” says Medha Patkar, leader of the National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM). NAPM’s opposition to the bill in its current form, is based on the fact that it fails to accommodate key recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee comprising members from different political parties. The standing committee on land acquisitions has said that no acquisition should be allowed for private and PPP projects. “Small benefits like a house plot to those displaced are being taken away by increasing the time of residence from three years to five years prior to displacement,” said NAPM in September. It further pointed out that a separate legislation on urban evictions and displacement was the only way out.
Reportedly, Jairam had convinced Sonia that the new Bill has the best Resettlement & Rehabilitation (R&R) package as it covers families of all farmers, landless and livelihood losers who have resided in the area for five years or more with a house or one-time financial grant in lieu thereof plus annuity of Rs.2,000 per month per family for 20 years, adjustable to inflation, or employment. However, the UPA chairperson is said to have insisted that the broad contours of the bill drawn up by the National Advisory Council were in public interest and should not be rejected ‘because of lobbying by the vested interests’. Other dilutions in the bill from its earlier form include compensation of four times the land value and not six times as proposed earlier. Land size thresholds on private purchases have also been left to the discretion of states instead of the 100 acre in rural and 50 acre in urban areas decided earlier.
Rajagopal says that the biggest problem with the bill is that it refuses to see the sufferings of the people. “It is more progressive than the first one. But again, it is not a land redistribution bill, it is a land acquisition bill. That is my problem – without considering land redistribution as a major agenda, the government is acquiring land for industry,” he says.
Recently, a group of farmers, who met the rural development minister also sought stringent provisions for acquiring farm land. Disappointed with the watering down of the draft of the bill by the GoM, the farmers who had come together under the banner of Kissan Mahasangh, said that while initially, land owners had given up surplus land to the landless immediately after independence to help establish a social set up with equitable assets and opportunities, it was ironical that laws are being made to facilitate accumulation of thousands of acres of land by private companies and individuals. “Over 300 SEZs have come up on the fertile land of farmers who have not benefited from them in any way. As per the Ministry of Finance the nation has lost over Rs.1.63 trillion in revenues till 2010,” the delegation has claimed. That the delegation has also objected to the acquisition of land for private companies; creation of land pool of unutilised land and leaving the decision of the calculation compensation of land vague, was confirmed by Devinder Seharawat, the co- convener of the Kissan Mahasangh.
For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles
Ranked 1st in International Exposure (ahead of all the IIMs)
Ranked 6th Overall
Zee Business Best B-School Survey 2012
Prof. Arindam Chaudhuri’s Session at IMA Indore
IIPM IN FINANCIAL TIMES, UK. FEATURE OF THE WEEK
IIPM strong hold on Placement : 10000 Students Placed in last 5 year
| BBA Management Education |
