Land acquisition ordinance is pro-farmer

The entire opposition is up in arms against the Land Acquisition ordinance promulgated by Modi – government in December, 2014 which the latter is now seeking to replace by a legislative enactment. The opposition is lambasting Modi for making amendments to the Act passed by the erstwhile UPA dispensation in 2013 which they allege, are pro-industry/business and anti-farmer.

The allegations are without any valid basis. These are political statements aimed primarily at embarrassing a government which is committed to inclusive development. Modi’s agenda aims at increasing employment and income to improve lot of poor including farmers. The amendments to 2013 Act are guided by this over-arching objective. Yet, why does opposition think otherwise?

The 2013 Act required prior consent of 70% of affected persons (apart from owners, this also includes persons working on the land) for PPP (public-private-partnership) projects and 80% in case of private sector projects. It also makes social impact assessment (SIA) study mandatory. The Act compensates landowner @ 4 times prevailing market price in rural areas and @ 2 times prevailing market price in urban areas. Further, if land remains un-utilized for 5 years then, it has to be returned to the owner.

Modi–government has dispensed with the consent and SIA requirements for five categories of projects viz., defence, rural infrastructure, affordable housing for the poor, industrial corridors and infrastructure projects including PPP projects wherein the ownership continues to vest with government. The provisions relating to compensation, relief and rehabilitation stay. However, clause relating to return of land has been relaxed to provide for 5 years or period specified at the time of setting up project whichever is later.

The opposition parties in the parliament and other critics (including Anna Hazare & Kejriwal) are resorting to a very narrow and out-of-context interpretation of dispensing with aforementioned requirements to infer that this is an onslaught on the rights of the farmers; this will take away their only source of livelihood; they do not have rights to go to the court; this ordinance is even more draconian than the 1894 Land Act etc!

How does mere withdrawal of consent requirement tantamount to trampling the rights of farmers? Are their rights and interest protected only when their concurrence is taken? Is there no other way to protect their interest? Even when they are paid handsome compensation, can one still conclude that they have been short changed? Why did government opt for exemption for land acquisition in mentioned categories? Do critics have time to think through all this?

The five mentioned areas are fundamental to safeguarding national boundaries especially keeping in mind the deteriorating security environment in our neighbourhood, spurring development to provide jobs for millions and increase their income, building infrastructure to provide basic services viz., health, water, power, sanitation, roads  and constructing ‘affordable’ houses all aimed at improving quality of life especially for majority of poor. Slackness in any of these areas can prove to be catastrophic.

Yet, projects involving tens of thousands of crores face slippages many a times running in to decades primarily due to protracted delays  in acquiring land besides delay in grant of environment and forest approvals. The provision for taking consent of 70%/80% of affected persons will aggravate the trend as putting in place consultative mechanisms and taking all of them on board is a tedious and time consuming process.

Besides, clause for SIA through multi-layered committee system – both at central and state level – can be used by vested interests in the political establishment and bureaucracy to indulge in corruption and delay or even seriously undermine the acquisition process if their aspirations are not met. This juxtaposed with the possibility of an affected person dragging project proponents to the court will ensure that acquisition proceedings may never get consummated.

These real risks that have the potential to torpedo the process of building infrastructure and resurrecting growth when it is needed the most prompted the government to dispense with the consent and SIA requirements. This will help in expediting the process of land acquisition. It will yield double bonus for farmers as on one hand, they get prompt compensation for land (albeit at very attractive rates) and on the other, their kith and kin will have better job prospects resulting from boost to development activity.

Therefore, far from being anti-farmer as alleged by the critics, the amendments made by Modi-government vide the ordinance are pro-farmer. The allegation that these favour corporate houses and big businesses is also un-tenable and fallacious as the exemption is limited only to those areas where either there is no involvement of corporate sector and even where it is involved, the activity involves a substantial public purpose.

While enacting the 2013 Act, the then UPA government had decided to exempt land acquisition under 13 central legislations in areas such as development of coal bearing areas, highways, railways, atomic energy, mines etc from the purview of the Act. In other words, such acquisitions were exempt from the requirement of consent and SIA. All that Modi-government has done is to add 5 more categories to this list in the overall interest of putting development on fast track.

It has also taken a major step forward in helping farmers by envisaging that landowners whose land is acquired under those 13 central legislations will also be entitled to fair compensation @ 4 times prevailing market price in rural areas and @ 2 times prevailing market price in urban areas and benefits of rehabilitation and resettlement. This was missing under UPA scheme of things.

Modi has thus removed a major flaw in the dispensation put in place by UPA as there cannot be any discrimination in determining the compensation amount merely on the basis of the purpose for which land is acquired. So, irrespective of whether land is acquired for an atomic energy plant or affordable housing or rural infrastructure, the compensation amount has to be the same.

Clearly, the ordinance is a win-win for all stakeholders especially for majority of the poor who can look forward to a better living as they get more jobs, affordable houses, better roads, more hospitals, improved sanitation etc. At another extreme, if extant flawed Act of 2013 were to stay and therefore impossibility of acquiring land, all this will be a distant dream!

All political parties should look at this broader picture and extend full support to the amendments in the Land Acquisition Act mooted by Modi-government. This will also be in consonance with their earlier stance as a record 32 state governments and UTs had expressed reservations over the extant Act. Now, when central government is making requisite changes in deference to their wishes, it will be morally repugnant for them to backtrack.

This government has been in office for 9 months. People want to see the results of various initiatives taken by it. Before, their patience runs out, it is incumbent on all our elected representatives to parliament and state assemblies to ensure that the biggest impediment to development viz., non-availability of land is removed at the earliest. Hence, the dire need for all of them to unite in passing the amendments mooted by Modi-government.

No Comments Yet.

Leave a Comment