Land Acquisition Ordinance: Separating Facts from Fiction

Is BJP unilaterally changing the Land Acquisition Act?

However hard the opposition may try to make it feel like it is NDA on one
side and the Congress, Left parties, NGOs, etc on the other side, the truth is
that everyone is on NDAs side and secretly want NDA to prevail. Only to
burnish their pro poor credentials (Read: Ensuring Poor should remain
poor), they are trying to fool the public by opposing the Land Acquisition
Ordinance.

In June 2014, representatives of 32 State Govts & UTs met at Vigyan

Bhavan and made a representation that the Land Acquisition Act passed
by the UPA Govt makes development impossible. They also felt that this
act excludes farmers from the development process and prevents
improvement of their lives & also delays critical compensation process for
them. They urged the Govt to rethink and revise various stumbling blocks
like: Social Impact Assessment, Lapse of land ownership after 5 years,
Consent Clause, Action against Govt servants, definition of affected family,
etc

In 2011, the CM of Maharashtra had written a letter to Jairam Ramesh

opposing the act. Infact, Maharashtra Government under Congress had
expressed concern over even giving a fair compensation. i Then
Maharashtras Congress Govt in August 2014 eventually lowered the
compensation from 4 times the market value to 2.2 times the market
value (notification attached). Surprising to find that people who are
opposing it now did not oppose this step by the Maharashtra Govt.

Recently Kerala Govt believed to be the flag-bearer of Congress style

socialism also strongly affirmed that UPAs Land Acquisition Act needs to
be changed. It has put on record its problems with the SIA & Consent
clause.ii

The Amendments introduced by NDA come after extensive consultations

and taking a measured view of the representations of all states.

Is the Act diluted?

In no way, the Act has been diluted. Infact the Act has been strengthened
by increasing its ambit to left out Central Acts. The existing Act kept 13
most frequently used Acts for Land Acquisition for the Central
Government Projects out of the purview. A random check of land
acquired in India would suggest that these 13 acts have been
overwhelmingly used the most to acquire land in past and consequently
leaving out these acts would deny farmers proper relief and
rehabilitation. These acts are applicable for national highways, railways
including metro rail, atomic energy projects, electricity related projects,
etc. Thus a large percentage of famers and affected families were denied
the compensation and R&R measures prescribed under the Act.

The present amendments bring all those exempted 13 Acts under the
purview of this Act for the purpose of compensation as well as
rehabilitation and resettlement.

What does the Ordinance mean for Farmers?

The pace of development will accelerate and farmers shall experience

unprecedented opportunities and improvement in life. If one looks at the
GDP composition around 60% of the population engrossed in agriculture
contribute to around 15% of the GDP, reflecting that it is the agrarian

community that needs a boost in terms of opportunities and

infrastructure.

This is a historic opportunity for the farmers where they can put decades
of stagnancy behind and embrace growth and progress. Not only will they
get 4 times the market price of their land, but they can also get 20% of the
original land and after the development by just paying the development
and acquisition cost. Market price of such developed land would give
significant capital gains to the farmers and make them true partners in the
development process.

For example A farmer who has 10 acres land which costs 2 lakh per acre in
the market will get 80 lakhs for his land. He will also get an option to buy
back 2 acres of land post development with good infrastructure in place at
the price of undeveloped land. After the value addition in terms of
infrastructure and nearby facilities, this 2 acre of his land will cost many
times more than the original cost. Thus by retaining just 20% of the land, he
would have significant capital gains.

Land is a primary requisite for any sort of development. Once acquisition

becomes easy, facilities like colleges, hospitals, railways will develop. A
farmers son who had to travel 200 kms daily to his college will have a
college nearby. An ailing farmer will not have to go to a hospital which
takes hours of travelling. Power plants as well as transmission lands, both
need land, but they will help provide electricity which shall improve the
lives and productivity of farmers.

The amendments are meant only for projects of public good. All land being
acquired for private purpose (hotels, real estate, factories) will have to be
purchased directly from farmers at the price that they want.

What is the Govts stand on Social Impact Assessment & 70% consent

The Govt has done away with Social Impact Assessment and 70% consent in
cases of PPP Projects related to the larger public good. This takes into
account the strong representation by the states on this matter.

Also in a country where the parliament takes decisions based on 51%

votes, having such a high cap is unfair to those who want to sell their
land. Isnt it depriving the people who want to sell their land of their right
to do so? We often also hear that negative consent of people has been
manufactured for political mileage.

We want housing for all, good road network, good railway connectivity,
more schools & colleges. For projects pertaining to these things, Social
Impact Assessment has been removed, but the land owners get proper
relief, rehabilitation and compensation.

Even in the present Ordinance, the choice of exempting such projects from
SIA & consent clause is left with the respective state governments. It is not
correct to say that ordinance removes these provisions all together. This is
in true spirit of federalism. But it also exposes the double sides of the
opposition. While states ruled by them do not want SIA & consent inspite
of freedom to choose, they will oppose NDA for doing so.

Why will the land still remain with the buyer if project hasnt completed within
5 years?

All huge projects require a gestation period. A nuclear power plant may
require more than 5 years to complete. Should we abandon it midway if it
doesnt complete in 5 years?

There are ambitious plans for large townships which are self-fulfilling.
There are often 10 year plans. Should we also abandon them if they dont
complete in 5 years. If we look at a Railway track project from initial survey
and assessment to the actual time when a train runs it, the time taken is
often more than 5 years. But the advantages and benefits and railways
track brings in the entire region is enormous. Do we not want all parts of
the country to join the development journey?

We do not want a nation of incomplete projects! We need to look beyond

the 5 year window and look towards our future. How we want our
country and our lives to be in the future and we will get the answer on
how much sense a 5 year cap makes!

i http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-08-30/news/41619143_1_land-acquisition-bill-maharashtra-cmprithviraj-chavan-stimulus-package
ii http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Article.aspx?eid=31811&articlexml=State-moots-radical-changes-in-LandAcquisition-Act-25072014002003

NDA
, ,
,
NDA NDA
pro poor credentials ( :
)

2014 32

representation

, - social Impact Assessment, 5
land ownership Lapse , Consent Clause,
,

2011
,


2.2 (notification
attached)
!

social Impact Assessment Consent Clause

NDA representations
-

, 13
, ,

13


13


,
, ,

13
,

GDP
60% GDP 15%

stagnancy


20%

, 10
2 , 80

2




20%

, ,
200
,

- transmission lands,
,

(, real estate, )

Social Impact Assessment & 70% consent ?

Larger public good

Social Impact Assessment & 70% consent
strong representation

51% , high
cap
?

, road network, Rail connectivity,

Special Impact Assessment

, SIA
consent clause

federalism

SIA consent
NDA
5
?

5
5

?

10

5

initial
survey 5

?

?
5

5 sense ?