P E R S P E C T I V E

LAND BILL
Land secured, vote a hope
by Vibha Sharma
Success with the ‘game changer’ National Food Security Bill buoyed the Congress-led UPA government to push through another ‘landmark’ legislation this week, the Land Acquisition Bill. For the Congress, it was important that the Bill (fast-tracked on instructions of party vice-president Rahul Gandhi after the Bhatta-Parsaul incident) was cleared before the monsoon session ended. Hoping to reap electoral benefits from the Bill in the 2014 poll, the government has already launched an advertisement blitzkrieg on the ‘achievement’.

Know the new acquisition law
The government says the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill, 2012, is “an attempt to correct the wrongs of its predecessor, the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, resting on three main pillars: consent, compensation and rehabilitation/ resettlement.”

LAND BILL
Land secured, vote a hope
by Vibha Sharma

Developers say the costs and time required for acquisitions would increase.

Success with the ‘game changer’ National Food Security Bill buoyed the Congress-led UPA government to push through another ‘landmark’ legislation this week, the Land Acquisition Bill.

For the Congress, it was important that the Bill (fast-tracked on instructions of party vice-president Rahul Gandhi after the Bhatta-Parsaul incident) was cleared before the monsoon session ended. Hoping to reap electoral benefits from the Bill in the 2014 poll, the government has already launched an advertisement blitzkrieg on the ‘achievement’.

As the UPA is in minority in the Upper House, the Rajya Sabha clearance for the Bill came at a price. The BJP forced the government to effect certain amendments in clauses related to irrigation projects, supposedly at the behest of Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan.

Rural Development Minister Jairam Ramesh moved as official amendments the BJP’s suggestions that retrospective and social impact assessment (SIA) clauses not be applied for acquisition of land for ongoing irrigation projects. He also moved the amendment to specify that either compensation or rehabilitation and resettlement (R&R) be given to farmers whose land is acquired for irrigation projects.

Now the farmers whose land is acquired for purposes other than irrigation projects will be entitled to benefits of both compensation and R&R.

The BJP, which helped the government pass the legislation, however, does not subscribe to the assumption that the Bill will fetch the Congress great electoral gains, because each state will follow its own land acquisition law.

Developers and the industry feel the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill, 2012, secures the land owners’ interest to an unfair extent. The farmers, of course, don’t agree.

Rajya Sabha amendments

Officials associated with the Bill term the amendments in the Rajya Sabha minor. However, a much-disappointed Madhuresh Kumar of the National Alliance of the People’s Movement, who has been closely following the progress of the legislation, says the new legislation is an “opportunity missed to undo the century-old wrongs committed on farmers and landowners”.

According to the original Bill, a Social Impact Assessment (SIA) was required before any process of acquisition was initiated, including any notice. The amendments have removed the need for such an assessment for irrigation projects.

Also, the Bill as passed by the Lok Sabha had mandated land as well as compensation in lieu of land acquired for irrigation projects. Now it will be either land or compensation, depending upon the availability with the state government.

The ‘minor changes’ effectively make most of the clauses related to R&R for irrigation projects redundant.

The earlier Bill had said R&R would be completed six months prior to submergence of lands under irrigation projects. “Why would any state opt for R&R when it can get away with just paying compensation,” says Madhuresh, terming the “rare show of unity” by the UPA and NDA in the Rajya Sabha “highly condemnable”.

“This is being done in the backdrop of three decades of struggle against 30 big dams, 135 medium dams and 3,000 small dams on the Narmada and its tributaries in Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat and Maharashtra. These dams are affecting nearly 5 million people and as of now not in a single project satisfactory R&R has been done.

The Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal (NWDT) Award, 1979, which mandated 5 acres of land to every major son for the Sardar Sarovar Dam affected families, a principle later accepted for some other dams too, is now under attack, Madhuresh says.

According to the South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People and other sources, 5,500 big dams have together displaced nearly 5.5 crore people and submerged 44,00,000 hectares of land in 4,528 dams. “Nearly 47 per cent of those displaced by these dams are tribal or indigenous people. A move to exempt irrigation projects from SIA and the ‘land for land’ provision is extremely unfortunate and a will hurt farmers, workers, Dalits and tribal people the most,” he says.

Not all farmer friendly

Even as the government claims this is a farmer-centric Bill, critics believe farmers’ land rights will not be protected. The main contention is that the land-for-land principal has not been kept uniform.

There is also lack of clarity regarding ‘public purpose’ and the government’s unquestionable power for acquisition.

For example, if a private company sets up a thermal plant, the consent of 80 per cent farmers will be required, but for a power plant owned by the government such consent will not be needed.

“Consent is required only for private or PPP projects, not those meant for ‘public purpose’. In a scenario where everything from roads, hospitals to tourism, mining and electricity, developed whether by public or private firms, is considered public good, the Bill will continue to betray people’s faith in the development process,” Madhuresh says.

Besides, provisions of R&R will be applicable only in cases of acquisition of 50 acres in urban and 100 acres in rural areas, whereas most of acquisitions by builders are between 5 and 20 acres.

There is ambiguity on other issues as well, like “sliding scale” for compensation. In the original version of the Bill, all rural areas were promised four times the market rate, but subsequently the concept of sliding scale was introduced, which will determine the compensation depending on the distance from an urban centre.

The government’s reasoning is that circle rates for lands closer to urban centres are usually closer to the market value as compared to lands situated in the interiors, where they are much lower than the market value. So any rural land near the city will command a lower compensation than those farther.

Developers unhappy

Infrastructure majors have also raised the red flag, saying the costs and time required for acquisitions would increase and drive away foreign investors. Jairam Ramesh counters the charge, saying the new transparent process will in fact speed up the acquisition process and also address other concerns of the industry.

Objections were also raised in Parliament on the “urgency clause”, but the minister said it could only be invoked in case of natural calamities and national security.

Long-pending Bill

The fast growing infrastructure projects and special economic zones over the past few years and the resultant agitations by farmers in states such as West Bengal (Nandigram and Singur), Karnataka and Odisha forced the government to introduce a Bill to repeal the 1894 Act in 2011.

But the legislation had to undergo several changes and extensive consultations following objections by Opposition parties and NGOs before finally managing Parliament’s clearance this week.

There is also a question as to how much land was actually acquired under the archaic law, which the new legislation seeks to replace. Madhuresh says a Parliamentary Standing Committee report had said that only 10 per cent of the total acquired land in the country had come under the 1894 Act. He, however, puts the figure at a “more realistic” 20-25 per cent.

Most of the land is acquired under other Central laws, which are yet to be brought under the new Bill. Besides, each state has its own industrial laws.

Officials, however, claim that most of the land acquired in states such as Punjab and Haryana has been under the erstwhile Act. “There is no study to give the exact figure, but acquisitions for most major infrastructure projects, including the Yamuna Expressway, was under the old Act,” an official told The Tribune.

While provisions under the new Bill will apply to acquisitions under the existing Special Economic Zones Act, 2005; Works of Defence Act, 1903; and Cantonments Act, 2006, there are 13 other laws related to land acquisition to which the new compensation rules are not yet applicable.

These include the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act; Atomic Energy Act; Damodar Valley Corporation Act; Indian Tramways Act; Land Acquisition (Mines) Act; Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act; National Highways Act; Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act; Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act; Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act; Coal Bearing Areas Acquisition and Development Act; Electricity Act; and the Railways Act.

The minister, however, assured Parliament that compensation in these 13 laws would also be made as per the new Bill.

Centre-state relations

As per the Constitution, land acquisition is placed under the concurrent list, which means that uniformity is desirable but not essential. The Centre thus has limited say in telling states how to manage their land.

For example, states such as Punjab and Haryana would have the freedom to choose what category of lands they would allow to be acquired, even if the Central law says multi-cropped irrigated land would not be taken away.

In any case, states thus far had been carrying out acquisitions under their own industrial acts and laws. This Bill will act as an enabling tool by setting the benchmark for minimum compensation.

Jairam Ramesh says the aim is not to interfere with the rights of the states. “We have fully protected the rights of the states, we are not making any interference as far as private acquisition is concerned. States will have full flexibility to improve upon the legislation,” he told Parliament.

Know the new acquisition law

A file photo of villagers protesting against acquisition in Punjab.

The government says the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill, 2012, is “an attempt to correct the wrongs of its predecessor, the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, resting on three main pillars: consent, compensation and rehabilitation/ resettlement.”

The salient features

A formula has been devised to ensure frequent amendments are not required to make it relevant in terms of changing land values.

The market value of land, determined broadly on the basis of average sale prices in the area over the last few years to the advantage of the land loser, is multiplied by two and is then enhanced by 100 per cent (through the imposition of a ‘solatium’ amount under Section 29), thereby bringing the compensation amount to four times the market value.

In the case of urban areas, the multiple is one, and not two, so after the addition of the solatium, the compensation would be at least twice the market value.

Sureties to protect the land seller

Before any acquisition notice, preliminary or otherwise, is issued, there must first be a social impact assessment (SIA).

It is only after the government submits reports in favour of an acquisition and the consent of 80 per cent of those whose land is to be acquired (70 per cent in the case of public-private partnership projects) has been determined that a preliminary notice for acquisition shall be issued.

If a preliminary notification is not issued within 12 months of the SIA, then the SIA will be deemed to have lapsed, and a fresh SIA will be required.

Objections may be entertained if an individual feels aggrieved by the SIA or recommendations of the Expert Group.

SIA can be bypassed only in situations covered by the ‘Urgency Clause’ — the acceptable situations being defence, national security or natural calamities.

Rehabilitation and resettlement (R&R) for all affected families

Entitlement to a house, provided they have been residing there for five years and have been displaced. If they choose not to accept the house, they will be offered a one-time financial grant.

Choice of annuity or employment: If employment is not forthcoming, they are entitled to a one-time grant of Rs 5 lakh per family. Alternatively, they will be provided with an ‘annuity’ of Rs 2,000 per month per family for 20 years (inflation will be taken into account).

Monthly subsistence allowance equivalent to Rs 3,000 per month for one year from the date of award will be given.

Training and skill development while being offered employment.

Multiple monetary benefits such as transport allowance of Rs 50,000 and resettlement allowance of Rs 50,000.

One-time financial assistance: Each affected family of an artisan, small trader or self-employed person shall get one-time financial assistance of such amount as the appropriate government may, by notification, specify, subject to a minimum of Rs 25,000.

Collector can take possession only after ensuring all entitlements are paid within three months for the compensation and six months for the monetary part of rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements, from the date of the award.

Time limit

Components of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Package in the Second and Third Schedules that relate to infrastructural entitlements shall be provided within 18 months from the award.

Securing farmers' interest

Retrospective effect: In past cases where awards have been made but no compensation has been paid, or possession not taken, the compensation will be paid as per the new Act.

Where acquisition has taken place five years prior to the new law, but no compensation/possession has taken place, the proceedings will be deemed lapsed.

Prior consent required from 70 per cent of land losers in the case of government or PPP projects, and 80 per cent in the case of private companies’ projects. It includes consent to the compensation.

Land not used can be returned to owners.

When acquired land is sold off to another party, 40 per cent of the increased land value has to be distributed among farmers.

Compensation under this Act is exempted from income tax and stamp duty.

Acquisition of farm land and multi-crop land has to be only as ‘a last resort’.

The final award has to include damage to any standing crop due to the acquisition process.

In case land is acquired for urbanisation, 20 per cent of the developed land will be offered to the farmers in proportion to the area of their land acquired, and at a price equal to the cost of acquisition and development.

In the case of irrigation or hydel projects, families may be allowed fishing rights.

Lay of the land New Bill replacing the antiquated 1894 Land Acquisition Act stipulates mandatory consent of at least 70% of landowners for acquiring land for PPP projects and 80% when acquiring land for private companies. No consent required for land acquired for “public purpose”. Relief and rehabilitation, besides compensation up to four times the market value in rural areas and two times in urban areas promised.