Land - Development - Democracy

On Land Acquisition Bill 2015

Tens of thousands in the country has been living a miserable life for decades because of forcible land acquisitions and remain helpless in finding an adequate means of livelihood. Official reports show that around 60 million people were displaced for development projects since Independence and less than third of whom have been compensated appropriately. The displaced people include the rural poor, fishermen, marginal farmers and quarry workers; around 40% of them are Adivasis and 20% are Dalits. They have been moved through ‘development induced displacement’ for large-scale projects such as thermal plants, mining, industrial facilities, canals, dams, etc. Such displacements were implemented by the British-era Land Acquisition Act 1894 till it was revoked by the passing of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act in 2013. The Act of 2013 incorporated provisions to get consent of 70% of the land owners to start developmental and Public Private Partnership projects on the acquired land, a Social Impact Assessment and a separate clause where the actions of the land acquisition would expire if either there was no physical possession of the land or if the compensation was not paid within 5 years and the land would be returned to the land owner. Additionally, the Lok Sabha, on 9 March 2015 passed the Land Acquisition Bill with nine Amendments (The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Amendment) as recommended by the Government.

The Amendment is a progressive step that combines compensation together with resettlement and rehabilitation of land owners. It offers adequate notice period for land acquisition and designs a proper procedure to provide compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement. The Government promises compensation to the affected monetarily and non-monetarily before setting up the development projects; monetary compensation is up to four times the market value of land in rural areas and two times in urban areas. A number of provisions has been added to resettle and rehabilitate those affected who will lose ownership or livelihood by the land acquisition. The Government also assures employment to one person of the family of whom the land is acquired. The Bill made it compulsory to obtain consent of land owners – 80% for private projects and 70% for Public Private Partnership projects – which could be raised to 100% by the respective State Governments. This is a significant improvement from the original Act; therefore if the majority of the landowners do not agree to the project, they can oppose the project by not giving their consent. The existing Act kept Central Government projects such as metro rail, national highways, atomic energy, etc. out of the purview whereas the Amendment brings all the exempted projects under the purview of the Act counting them for compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement. The Amendment in the Act allows a fast track process for defence production, rural infrastructure such as affordable housing, electrification, industrial corridors etc. and Public Private Partnership projects. The Ordinance has given a clearer definition for ‘public purposes’ unlike the existing Act which permitted Government to acquire any land on any pretext terming it as for ‘public purposes’. Overall, the proposed Amendment gives transparency to land acquisitions for development projects and assures rehabilitation of land owners.

Although the new Bill complements the Government’s stride towards ‘aim for development’, the proposal shows a number of visible hitches too. A major drawback of the Land Acquisition Bill is the loss of livelihoods of those who are reliant on agriculture other than the land owners. The Bill safeguards only the land owners with compensation and benefits, and not the innumerable number of farm labourers, artisans and other villagers who depend indirectly on farm produce. It is also a concern that the compensation amount would be insufficient to the affected who will be deprived of their livelihoods even if it is four times the market price. Activists claim that the market price would be too low, especially in rural areas prior to the setting up of a development project. Furthermore, there is no guaranteed employment for the land owners in the Resettlement and Rehabilitation clause. Decision making in development projects is a lengthy process which would adversely affect the short term and long term lives of the farmers. Social Impact Assessment (SIA) was compulsory before acquiring a land in the existing Law whereas the proposed Amendment waives the procedure. SIA is a worldwide accepted assessment method which help organisations to plan, implement and scale initiatives effectively. A recent study by Comptroller and Auditor General shows that 53% of 60,000 hectares of land acquired for Special Economic Zones from 2006 to 2013 remain unused. SIA checks these malpractices and restores faith in democracy. The removal of Social Impact Assessment is a downside as it restrains accountability to a large extent. Without this assessment, it is impossible to find out the actual number of citizens that get affected in the acquisition process.

The Bill hauls off consent of land owners if the land is being acquired for five purposes; they are defence, affordable housing, industrial corridors, rural infrastructure and Public Private Partnership projects. As per the new Ordinance, even multi-crop irrigated land could be acquired for these public purposes. The ‘urgency’ clause allows the Government to make land acquisitions without the consent of the land owners ignoring all pre-requisites. The respective State is the final decision maker which would eventually lead to ‘forcible’ land acquisitions. The existing Act allowed land to be returned to its original owner if it remained unused for five years but the Amendment states that the land will be returned only if the project on the land fails to the complete its deadline, hence the State decides the time frame of the project. Bureaucrats were to be punished if found guilty of violating any clause according to the existing Act but the proposed Bill makes Government sanctions mandatory to take legal action against civil servants. The current Government claims of shortage of land for industrial projects but official documents reveal that about 30-50% of the land acquired by the States through Industrial Development Corporations remain unused. As per the new Ordinance, it will be the private sector who will benefit the most in the process and the land owners will be the losers in the long run. Considering all these issues, it is questionable that the Land Acquisition Bill would considerably benefit the common man despite its assurances and may end up with a number of shortcomings sooner or later. The new provisions in the Amendment may encourage forcible, unjust and unfair evictions which is against democracy even though the Government defends that the Ordinance would balance the developmental needs of India and provide better compensation to the land owners.

The first step as a solution to all these issues is to grant rights to people over their land which would give them stability of ownership to advocate their needs and participate in the development process of the nation. It is recommended that the land is leased from land owners in which case they could maintain their rights over the property until the projects are completed. The projects deals should have a modest compensatory package where the private players offer continued payment of a percentage of profits for a certain period to the land owners. It would provide them with a steady income flow until they find a suitable livelihood to support themselves. Social Impact Assessment should be recalled at least for medium to large scale projects and directed effectively to ease grievance litigation. The Social Impact Assessment is a time consuming process because of its requirement for all projects and lack of a structured strategy. However, the accountability that it provides is unquestionable as it is a helpful tool to assess the positive and negative impacts of development projects. A new fast track Social Impact Assessment steered by experienced professionals following a well-thought-out policy should be considered to gauge the relevance of development projects and its effects on people.

The current debate on the Land Acquisition Law gives us a chance to reflect on India’s growth process and the experience of democracy for a majority of our citizens. Land acquisition has been a contentious issue in the country and it is essential that we need fast track reforms to tackle the dispute. At the same time, it is also necessary that the nation should move forward in growth and development but not at the cost of the livelihoods of the underprivileged. The proposed Amendment to the Act of 2013 fails to address the land acquisition issues in the country. It also gives no clarity of its purpose either to protect the interest of the public and growth of the country or uplift the political agenda of the Government. Before an Amendment is made a Law, the voices of the already displaced and the ones that are threatened to be displaced should be heard. The farmers should be given an opportunity to assess if the project will benefit them and the compensation offered to them is fair. The protests of farmers against land acquisition is not ‘anti-development’; they form models of democracy and actual development of the country is safeguarding the poor and nature along with indorsing urbanisation.