As the acquisition of land for development purposes has embroiled in major political controversies in different states, the Supreme Court has stressed that the government should give preference to the policy of “land-for-land” to ensure that no farmers, especially the tribals, were rendered landless.
“In the process of development, the state (government) cannot be permitted to displace tribal people, a vulnerable section of our society, suffering from poverty and ignorance, without taking appropriate remedial measures of rehabilitation,” a bench of Justices J.M. Panchal, Deepak Verma and B.S. Chauhan said. The top court laid the guidelines for the Centre and the state governments while discussing in great length the theory of “land-for-land”, which, the bench said, should form the basis for acquisition of any land from the poor farmers, especially the tribals whose displacement without proper rehabilitation will prove disastrous for their very existence.
“This court (SC) is not oblivious of the fact that social and economic reasons had caused disaffection, and thus, the tribal areas are today in the grip of extremism, as the tribal youth have become easy prey to the extremist propaganda,” the top court observed.
While dealing with the contentious issue, the top court took into consideration the “doctrine” that all the “major sons” of a farmer has the right to own a piece of land.
The top court took note of the fact that the country’s entire agriculture system was based on this doctrine and if a son of a farmer was “denied” the right to own the land, it would amount to his “hostile discrimination”.
The top court observations came in a recent judgment on the cross appeals related to the acquisition of land, rehabilitation package, land-for-land, and cash compensation to the farmers displaced due to the construction of a series of projects on Narmada river in Madhya Pradesh.
The court said the issue of compensation could not be decided strictly on the basis of the Narmada Water Dispute Tribunal Award for the simple reasons that the tribunal was constituted under the provisions of the Inter-State Water Dispute Act as its purpose was entirely different because the interests of three stakeholder states — Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat and Maharashtra — were involved in the mega-project.
“Our Constitution requires removal of economic inequalities and provides for provision of facilities and opportunities for a decent standard of living and protection of economic interests of the weaker segments of the society and in particular the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes,” the top court said.