The bill not only replaces a colonial law dating back to 1894 that was hopelessly out of tune with modern times, but provides an appropriate alternative in today’s context.
The Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill that was cleared by the Lok Sabha last week is a landmark legislation. It not only replaces a colonial law dating back to 1894 that was hopelessly out of tune with modern times, but provides an appropriate alternative in today’s context. We hope the bill as passed in the Lower House will face no serious hurdles in the Rajya Sabha, where it is due to come up for discussion soon.
As the name suggests, the bill keeps in perspective the interests of landowners, whose land is sought to be transferred for industrial or commercial use without neglecting the notion that the spread of industrialisation is needed as agriculture alone cannot sustain the national economy, and for this reason land needs to be sold for industrial and commercial use at an appropriate price (several times the market rate) after transparently declaring the purpose of purchase.
But strong safeguards should be in place before land is taken from a farmer or tribal entities in forested surroundings. The bill seeks to provide those safeguards. This is so very different from the situation prevailing under the colonial law which conferred “eminent domain” status on the government, which was entitled (no questions asked) to acquire land for public purposes, to be defined by the government.
True, the government was typically not capricious, and the public purpose pertained to the building of infrastructure in various areas, including building public enterprises. With the expansion of the private sector, land was also needed to set up industries. But there was usually tension over whether farmers got a fair deal for the land they parted with. The Singur case in West Bengal was an eye-opener in this regard. Sometimes land buyers would fudge the purpose of purchase while paying farmers, and make huge profits by transferring the land later for commercial purposes. This led to considerable resentment among rural communities. There was another factor as well. Many in rural areas did not own land but worked on land owned by others. The legislation under process seeks to address their concerns too, by offering suitable employment or rehabilitation in other ways.
It’s a pity that sections of industry haven’t been sensitive to the socio-occupational profile of the country, and have criticised the new law as being too bureaucratic; really for not meeting their concerns wholly. A maximalist stance is, however, unrealistic. It is possible corrections will be made in the light of experience in due course. But to criticise the bill as “populist” is to miss the march of time. The government cannot be expected to act as a broker for urban industrial and commercial interests at the expense of rural and forest communities.
Post new comment