1

Saxena, Naresh Chandra. "Land Acquisition Law in India." Journal of Resources, Energy and Development 15, no. 1-2 (2018): 1-11.

Land Acquisition Law in India1

Naresh Chandra Saxena
68 Friends Colony West, New Delhi 110065
naresh.saxena@gmail.com
9811486773

Abstract
Fast economic growth in the last two decades has increased demand for land from many
sources. Even when many of these activities are funded privately and driven by profit motive,
they serve a social purpose, as employment generation per unit of land is higher in non-
agricultural uses than in agriculture. However, the 1894 colonial law which remained
applicable till 2013 was quite hostile to the interests of the landowner, as it attempted to
make land available to government at a minimal price, which led to resistance in many cases.
In this context the new Land Acquisition Law, 2013 tries to do justice to the landowners and
those dependent on that land by improving compensation and rehabilitation package.
However, there is still room for improvement so that the whole process is not dilatory and
does not retard economic growth. Besides, landowners should benefit from future escalation
in land prices, project affected families must be made literate, and trained for semiskilled or
skilled jobs, and land records must be updated as per the new Hindu Succession Act in the
interest of women's empowerment.

Introduction
Fast economic growth in the last two decades has increased demand for land from many
sources, such as infrastructure, industry, resource extraction (such as mining), and
urbanization, including real estate. Even when many of these activities are funded privately
and driven by profit motive, they serve a social purpose, as employment generation per unit
of land is higher in non-agricultural uses than in agriculture. For instance, a 4000 MW
thermal plant may displace about 250 households but would create tens of thousands of new
jobs by providing power to small industry, and to tubewells that would increase both gross
cropped area and productivity. At present the share of urban dwellers in total population of
India is 32 per cent, but they occupy only 6 per cent of the total area of the country. Growth
through industrialization and urbanisation would not only increase labour productivity but
will reduce pressure on farm land by pulling people away from land to non-farming
occupations. However, land acquisition has emerged as the most important structural
constraint in India to the process of fast industrialization and improvement in infrastructure.
Delays in procuring land leads to uncertainty and cost escalation, and thus affects
development.
Acquisition of land by government in the past had drawn resistance in many cases due to
inadequate compensation for the land and loss of livelihoods of the affected people, as well
as for involuntary displacement without proper rehabilitation. Moreover, people are not
willing to give up their present dwelling and occupation of farming for a dark future totally
dependent on the vagaries of market. The colonial land acquisition law of 1894 has been
quite hostile to the interests of the landowners, as it attempted to make land available to
industry through government at a minimal price. So far the practice in most state
governments has been to coerce people to give up their lands by using the legal powers of
eminent domain, and in some cases even through the use of force.

1
This is an updated and enlarged version of the previous papers written by the author in the past,
some of which are mentioned in the Reference section at the end of this paper.
 2

The most criticised section of the colonial law was the Urgency Clause. The clause never truly
defined what constituted an urgent need and left it to the discretion of the acquiring
authority. As a result almost all acquisitions under the Act even for private real estate
invoked the urgency clause. This resulted in the complete dispossession of the land without
even the token satisfaction of the processes listed under the Act.
Thus the model followed had been, ‘let some people lose out so that others (this includes
some enterprising poor too) may gain’. Unfortunately the losers tend to be the poorest with
little skills, often tribals, who are unable to negotiate with the market forces and cope with
the consequences of their forced expulsion from land, and end up much worse off than
before acquisition. Some estimates suggest that at least 60 million people were displaced
between 1947 and 2004, amongst whom at least 40% were tribals and 20% Scheduled Castes
(Hall 2013). Of those displaced, less than 18% were resettled. This has turned millions of
independent producers into propertyless labourers, which could have been avoided with
imaginative land acquisition and rehabilitation policies.
Rising conflicts over forced acquisition
Before 1990, most land was acquired by government for large irrigation projects, public
sector enterprises, and other explicit public purposes such as new townships of Chandigarh,
Gandhinagar, and Bhubaneswar, and therefore the use of coercive legal powers carried at
least some credibility in the eyes of the public. In the last two decades however powers of
eminent domain have also been used for acquisition for private industry and real estate,
which is driven, not by the ‘noble cause of national development, but profit motive’. Though
such private enterprises contribute to direct and indirect employment generation, people’s
perception of these activities being in ‘public interest’ is generally negative, and therefore
they are less tolerant of being made to leave the area or accept unfair compensation.
Consequently, there has been growing protest and militancy leading to tension, conflict and
violence, besides litigation that increases uncertainty and costs involved in delayed
possession of land.
Low compensation is not the only cause for resistance. It is also because of trust deficit that
exists today between government and the peasantry, because the promises made to them on
earlier occasions for rehabilitation and settlement have not been fulfilled; and the
compensation amount has been uncertain and irregular. Thousands of families displaced by
various projects are still awaiting compensation payments. In a few cases, those displaced in
early 1970s are yet to receive compensation (Verma et al 2012). In many cases the true
beneficiaries are the absentee landlords and intermediaries, but not the poor peasantry.
The new Land Acquisition Law, 2013 –An Overview
The problems discussed above have been addressed in the new law, ‘The Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act,
2013’, passed by the Parliament in India in September 2013. Rules for the operation of the
Act have been notified by the new government in August, 2014. The new law not only
substantially enhances compensation to the landowners but even tries to do justice to those
dependent on that land by prescribing that each affected household including landless
labourers and tenants who were dependent on the acquired land are either provided
employment, or given a monthly sum of Rs 2,000 (with statutory enhancement for inflation
in subsequent years) for twenty years, or Rs five lakhs in lumpsum.
The new law makes a distinction between land needed for government needs and private
(including public-private partnership) projects. The first category would include defence
needs and projects for infrastructure, government run industry or mining activities,
Government administered or aided educational and medical institutions and projects for
residential purposes to the poor or landless or to persons residing in areas affected by
natural calamities. In such cases consent of the affected landowners is not needed. However,
if land is needed for private industry or real estate consent of 80% landowners is mandatory.
For public-private partnership projects this has been reduced to 70%. For such projects
 3

including those by private companies, the Requiring Body would negotiate terms of
rehabilitation and compensation with landowners and seek their willingness. The proposed
terms and conditions informally agreed to between the Requiring Body and landowners
would be communicated to district authorities who would make these available to each and
every affected landowner in local language at least three weeks in advance of the meeting of
administration with the affected land owners, where their formal written consent would be
sought. All proceedings of taking affected land owners’ consent during land owners meetings
shall be recorded in video and all the proceedings must be documented in writing.
For government projects, where consent is not needed, compensation (including solatium)
would be double the market price for urban areas, and two to four times the market value for
rural areas, depending upon the distance of the acquired land from cities. Market value is
generally determined by examining the sale deeds of similar land in that area, and as the
written value in such sale deeds is much less than the actual market value (buyers and sellers
do so in order to evade taxes), provision has been made to give much more than the
registered sale value to the affected landowners, so as to ensure fair compensation.
Although cost of land and rehabilitation would vary from project to project, the total cost,
which the industry will bear if land is made available to them without delay or litigation,
would not be more than 2 to 5% of the project cost. For instance, For instance, the total
project cost of the proposed steel plant by a Korean firm (POSCO) was stated to be 54,000
crore Rupees and it would have displaced 700 households. If POSCO had decided to spend
even 1% on the displaced people, each one of them would have received Rs 80 million as
compensation. However, actual compensation that was being offered was just one to two
million Rupees leading to resistance and even violence. A 4000 MW thermal plant would
cost about Rs 25,000 crore Rupees and would displace about 250 households. Thus
earmarking just one percent of the project cost for acquisition could make each displaced
family a crorepati!
The clause requiring consent of at least seventy per cent of the project affected people is
highly welcome, and it should not scare the industry, as in most cases of mono-cropped
agriculture farmers themselves are keen to get out of uncertain and risky crop production.
Wherever the people are not willing to give their land or shift, it must be assumed that the
fault is either in the package being offered, or in the progress of implementation or in the
approach to the displaced communities. Alternatively, it could be because the
implementation of resettlement and rehabilitation (R&R) programmes in other cases has
been so unsatisfactory that the affected people do not feel confident of receiving what they
have been promised. In any case, this must be recognised as a failure of the rehabilitation
process.
The new Act prescribes special safeguards for tribal communities and other disadvantaged
groups, as no land (not even for government) can be acquired in Scheduled 2 Areas without
the consent of the Gram Sabhas (village councils). The Law also ensures that all rights
guaranteed under protective legislations such as the Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled
Areas) Act 1996 and the Forest Rights Act 2006 are taken care of. It has special enhanced
benefits for those belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
There are adequate safeguards against arbitrary displacement. The law provides that no one
shall be dispossessed until and unless all payments are made and alternative sites for the
resettlement and rehabilitation have been prepared. The Act even lists the infrastructural
amenities, such as schools, playgrounds, Health Centres, roads, electric connections, and
safe drinking water that have to be provided at the new site of resettlement to those that have
been displaced.
In addition to cash compensation, the law provides for new houses for all affected families
whose houses have been acquired, provided they have been residing in the affected area for 5

2
These are the areas of concentration of tribal communities in central and north-eastern India.
 4

years or more and have been displaced. If they choose not to accept the house they are
offered a one-time financial grant in lieu of the same.
Why not lease land in place of acquisition?
Section 104 of the new Act states that government is free to exercise the option of taking the
land on lease, instead of acquisition. However, since this is a state subject, states should
amend their tenancy laws to facilitate the entry of industry in the land market, and promote
willing buyer-willing seller transactions that will make the coercive provisions of the land
acquisition law irrelevant.
There are two laws that need to be addressed to make leasing possible. In almost all states
except Punjab, Haryana, Assam, Andhra Pradesh (but not Telangana) and Tamil Nadu, there
are tenancy laws that do not permit land being leased to tenants for agriculture. Maharashtra
goes a step further and even bans sale of agricultural land to a non-agriculturist. Second, in
almost all states, there are provisions that agricultural land cannot be used for industrial
purposes, unless written permission is taken from a designated authority, which is time-
consuming and encourages corruption. Often politicians and land mafia operate as
middlemen to facilitate getting the required permission from government for the change in
landuse. Both these laws need to go.
A ban on leasing was imposed after Independence in almost all states to encourage owner-
cultivation and to give security of tenure to sharecroppers and tenants. Although such laws
should continue in tribal areas where agricultural markets are not well developed, in other
states where the mode of production has become capitalist, there is a need to liberalise and
free leasing-in of land from all government controls.
Studies show that the lease market facilitates a shift of control of land to smallholders and
tenants (Bhattacharya 2013). Big owners are found to lease out and the resultant distribution
of operational area is less uneven than the ownership pattern. Thus, the lease market enables
the landless to gain access to land that, in turn, enhances employment opportunities since
poor farmers tend to saturate their land with inputs of labour. In areas experiencing
technological change and high growth, marginal farmers may also gain by leasing out their
area and taking up non-farm employment while still retaining ownership and the right to
resume their control over the land after the lease period.
When I was Rural Development Secretary in the Government of India some 20 years ago, I
wrote to all states that the time had come to repeal such laws and to permit leasing of land.
The experience of Punjab and Haryana shows that free leasing has not brought back
landlordism in a new garb, as was the fear that led to stricter control on tenancy. The states
did not heed to my advice, however.
The second issue of freeing from all controls conversion of land-use for industrial purposes
should also be addressed. As already argued, Industry serves a social purpose since
employment generation per unit of land is higher in non-agricultural uses than in
agriculture.
The argument that this would lead to food scarcity is bogus. On June 1, 2018, 68 million
tonnes of foodgrain was lying surplus in government godowns while another 10 million
tonnes of our grain is exported by private traders. So we have more than enough food for
internal consumption, and we can afford to change the land-use of our farm lands to non-
agricultural to some extent, which will reduce pressure on the existing farm lands by
encouraging non-farm employment.
Besides, should not the farmer decide whether he should grow food or not? If he is getting a
lifelong opportunity of earning more from his labour in some other way, why should anyone
prevent that?
Recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee
 5

Before passing the Act the draft Bill was examined in 2012 by a Parliamentary Committee,
which took a highly impractical stand and recommended that no acquisition should be done
for private companies, and they should be forced to buy the entire land directly from
landowners. Profit enterprises will have to purchase land in the open market. This
recommendation may help farmers of the developed regions who are aware of the market
conditions, but may result in large scale cheating and deception in tribal and remote areas
where anti-social elements will be hired by the land mafia, and tribals will be forced to sign
land transfer deeds. In any case, in many central Indian states tribal land cannot be sold to
non-tribals through market transactions. To get possession over such lands, industry would
have to use extra-legal methods of showing sale in the name of some non-existent or
compliant tribal. It may also legalise transfer of land that originally belonged to tribals, but is
now alienated from them, and has not been restored back to them despite laws to the
contrary. Moreover, land records are hopelessly out of date in many states, which will delay
private transfer of land. Often, land is cultivated by the poor, especially tribals, but their
possession and ownership has not been recorded in the official documents. Such people
would be compelled to give up their possession without any compensation.
Further, land purchased under “lawful contract” will not carry the responsibilities of R&R,
which will deprive benefits that are proposed under the new Act to the landless livelihood
losers. Besides, even in developed areas where farmers are aware of markets it is seen that
small farmers are the first ones to sell to a buyer as they need immediate cash to meet other
pressing exigencies, and large farmers who delay their sale are able to get a higher price,
often several times what was paid to the small farmers.
Government has rightly rejected the recommendations of the Parliament Committee.
The new Act in fact does not rule out the possibility of willing-buyer and willing-seller
negotiations. By increasing the cost of acquisition several times than the present practice it
gives a signal to the industry to discourage approaching government for acquisition. In any
case the Central government cannot legislate on land purchase, which is a state subject. The
Act gives an option to the farmers who could say ‘no’ to industry if they think that
government would offer a better package. The same choice is available to those seeking land;
either negotiate directly or go to the government. However, markets in backward regions do
not favour small farmers because of information asymmetry.
Negative aspects of the new law
Causes delay - Ever since the passing of the new Land Acquisition Law in 2013 there has
been no big news in the social media about farmers’ unrest or agitation. This is quite a
contrast with the first decade of this century that saw massive confrontations between the
landowners and government. Some examples are Singur, Posco, Vedanta, and Polavaram.
Does it mean that the 2013 law has built bridges between the two contending parties, and
therefore needs no further amendment?
Although one needs more empirical data, my own hunch is that the 2013 law has been
rejected by the land acquiring parties, including state governments, and they have resorted
to direct negotiations, which reduces delay and litigation.
The main concern of industry is not one time cost but the delay in getting secure possession
over land which causes the escalation in the project cost. A close examination of the new Act
would reveal that acquisition of even one acre of land would take at least three-four years
and the proposal will have to pass through about a hundred hands. The delay is caused
mainly because the Act establishes several committees adorned by activists and “experts”. To
begin with, for all cases of acquisition a Social Impact Assessment would be done by an
Independent body, and its report would be vetted by another Expert Group. In addition,
there would be an R&R Committee, a State Level Committee, and a National Monitoring
Committee to pontificate over the reports generated by the junior committees. Delay in
completion of formalities would also delay payment of compensation thus harming farmers
and causing uncertainty in their rehabilitation. In an interview with the Business Standard
 6

(March 13, 2015) I described the new Act as 'anti-farmer and anti-growth, but certainly pro-
civil society and pro-bureaucracy'.
A simpler solution would have been to delegate powers to the district Collector to acquire
upto 100 acres of land without Committees and without any reference to the state
governments. The Collector would obtain landowners’ consent and fix compensation through
negotiations without any upper limit, and thus make land available to the project in a few
months’ time.
From industry’s point of view, the price of land acquisition has two elements. One is the
direct price paid for acquisition and R&R, which goes directly to the affected households. The
second element is an indirect price that includes transaction costs such as the cost of
conducting social impact assessments, running the new multiple layered acquisition
bureaucracy, bribing land mafia and politicians, and opportunity costs (production forgone
as a result of delays in securing approvals and fighting court cases). The direction of any
amendment to the colonial 1894 law should have been to substantially increase the direct
costs and drastically cut down the indirect costs. By delaying the whole process of acquisition
the 2013 Act unfortunately did not strike a good balance between the two costs.
Landowners should benefit from future escalation in land prices - Often land
value goes up after acquisition and the original owners feel cheated when they find that their
land after a few years is being sold for ten to hundred times the price that was paid to them.
A survey of the original inhabitants of Maan, a village near Pune where land was acquired for
an information technology park and industrial estates, found that the process of acquisition
was initially attractive as a handsome compensation was paid to them which made most
farmers sell their lands willingly. However after a few years when land prices further soared
farmers felt bitter as they had no share in the future appreciation of land involved (Sathe
2017). Farmers wanting to give up land are also desirous of being part of the promised
industrialisation and urban development that goes with land acquisition. The preamble of
the new Act identifies affected people as possible “partners in development” as an outcome
of compulsory acquisition, however it would happen only if they too benefit from the hyper
inflation that takes place after land acquisition.
Therefore, whenever land acquired by government is transferred to an individual or a
company for a consideration, a part of the appreciated value should be given to the original
landowner. However, section 102 of the Act completely defeats the intention behind the idea
of sharing capital gains with the landowner, as payment would be made only when no
development has taken place on such land. The builder can plant one tree on that land and
get away by not paying to the original landowner any capital gains! Moreover, such benefit
shall accrue only on the first sale, and not on subsequent transactions. It should have been
made applicable for all transactions for at least twenty years.
Another alternative is to give a certain percentage of the “developed” land back to the
farmers. This is being successfully done in Amravati where a new capital is being built for
Andhra Pradesh. On this developed land, land losers can have a house of their own; or start
any economic activity like a shop, eatery, or just build rooms and rent them out. This ensures
them a continuous source of income which is inflation adjusted. In such a scenario, they do
not become redundant and also have some work to do.
Amaravati as it exists today is a result of 33,000 acres of land ‘pooled’ in by the state
government from individual farmers from Vijayawada and Thullur along the banks of the
Krishna river. The city is being hailed as a ground-breaking experiment in land acquisition
that can prove to be mutually beneficial to both the state and the farmers. Under this system,
the pre-existing landowners or occupants of the land voluntarily handover and sign
ownership rights over to the government agency managing land transfers in that area.
The agency’s job then is to build roads and lay sewage lines and provide residents with
electricity connections. Once that is done, the agency returns a smaller, predetermined
portion of the now developed area to the original occupants. Land owners primarily stand to
 7

benefit from this scheme on two premises: first, the area once developed will have better
amenities to improve the standard of living of its residents; secondly, on account of these
amenities, the price of the land would rise to match the market value of the owner’s original
holding (Dua 2017).
The results of land pooling in Amaravati are yet to be gauged with certainty. However,
several positive developments have been promised to the people, such as the provision of old
age homes, canteens for the poor, a pension of 2,500 per month to landless families and
tenant farmers for 10 years, free education, free healthcare, round-the-year implementation
of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) for
agricultural labour, and skill development centres for unemployed youth, to name a few.
Capacity building - For the displaced people, the new settlement must be as close to the
factory site and new township as possible so as to ensure maximum access to the newly
created economic opportunities. In such projects, a major responsibility of the project
authorities should be training and capacity building of the affected families. In between the
intention to set up a project and displacement there is always a significant time gap. During
this period, every project affected person (PAP) who consents must be made literate, and
trained for semiskilled or skilled jobs as per the choice and educational qualifications. If this
policy is faithfully executed, it will reduce displacement because most jobs will then be taken
up by the PAPs and inflow of employees from outside will be minimal. So a big township
would not be required.
To give an example, although the site for the Vedanta Bauxite plant was settled at Kalahandi
(Orissa) as way back as 2000, the author found in 2010 that the primitive tribes living in
uplands just five kms away from the plant could neither understand the local language
(Oriya) nor could they sign their names. Thus no effort was made by the state government or
the project authorities to educate the tribe and improve their skills. The new Act has however
ignored this aspect. Establishment of vocational training centres, water, sanitation and
health facilities in the rehabilitation site should precede before actual displacement.
Demonstrative implementation of rehabilitation and resettlement measures would bring
down their distrust against administration.
Transfer of government non-forest and forest lands - The colonial Act as well as the
new Act apply only on private lands. Often land transferred to new projects is either forest
land, or non-forest government land, known by various names such as poromboke, C&D
lands, gauchar, etc. Such lands are not acquired, but simply resumed, as legally these are
government lands though these could be used by the community for grazing or collection of
minor forest products. In many cases these may even be managed by the community. During
the colonial period compensation for such lands too was provided under the Wastelands
Claims Act of 1869. However, this law fell into disuse and was repealed sometime in the
1980s. As non-forest common lands fall under the State list of the Constitution, GOI cannot
legislate on these lands. However, it could have advised the states suitably or sent them a
model law.
As regards 70 million ha of forest lands, these could be divided in two categories. On about 8
m ha people's engagement has been formalised under the Forest Rights Act of 2006 (FRA),
either for individual cultivation or for community use. These right holders are recognised as
landowners and also in the category of affected family under section 3 (c) and (r) of the new
Act. Section 42(3) provides that 'where the community rights have been settled under the
provisions of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of
Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (2 of 2007), the same shall be quantified in monetary amount and
be paid to the individual concerned who has been displaced due to the acquisition of land in
proportion with his share in such community rights'. Moreover the affected Scheduled
Tribes, other traditional forest dwellers and the Scheduled Castes having fishing rights in a
river or pond or dam in the affected area shall be given fishing rights in the reservoir area of
the new irrigation or hydel projects. Empirical evidence needs to be collected as to how these
noble provisions are actually been implemented.
 8

However, on the rest of 62 m ha of forest lands, people dependent on such lands are not
entitled to compensation, but would be considered for R&R benefits under section 3 (c) of
the new Act if such families 'whose primary source of livelihood for three years prior to the
acquisition of the land is dependent on forests or water bodies and includes gatherers of
forest produce, hunters, fisher folk and boatmen and such livelihood is affected due to
acquisition of land'. Thus peoples' dependence on much of the forest lands, though real and
often mentioned in forest settlement volumes, has unfortunately not yet been recognised
under FRA and therefore such people are not entitled for compensation, which was provided
under the Wastelands Claims Act during the colonial era.
The other important issue in diversion of forest lands pertains to consent of the forest
dwellers. Such diversion requires Central government's clearance under the Forest
Conservation Act. But up to 2009 it did not involve any consultation with the communities
that may have rights or dependence on the land being diverted. There is no explicit provision
in the Forest Rights Act, 2006 for obtaining permission of the gram sabha for diversion of
forest lands to non-forest purposes. However, section 4(5) of the Act prevents government to
evict any forest dweller unless the recognition process as provided in the Act is completed.
Further, section 5 empowers the gram sabha and forest right holders to protect forests and
stop any activity that affects forests. Keeping these sections in mind the Ministry of
Environment & Forests (MoEF) issued guidelines in August 2009 making consent of affected
gram sabhas mandatory for all projects that need diversion of forestland for non-forest
purposes. However, in actual practice such consent was not being obtained. As per reply to a
Parliament question3, between 1.06.2011 to 31.05.2014, the Ministry granted approval for
diversion of 87,252 ha of forest land for non-forestry purposes involving 3,772 proposals of
various categories like roads, railway, power, mining, etc. As Chairman of the Vedanta
Enquiry Committee I had held that MoEF would be guilty of violating the FRA Act, if it
ignores the wishes of the Gram Sabhas. This stand was later vindicated by the Supreme
Court in 2013.
Although consent of the rightholder is not needed where government acquires land for itself
for infrastructure etc, section 41 of LA Act states that ‘as far as possible, no acquisition of
land shall be made in the Scheduled Areas’. In case of acquisition in the Scheduled Areas
prior consent of the concerned Gram Sabha would have to be obtained, even in cases of
urgency. Whereas PESA had provided for only consultation with the gram sabhas, the new
Act went a step further and made consent mandatory. But for non-scheduled areas there is
still confusion about the consent clause in case of diversion of forest lands.
Neglect of gender issues - The 2013 Act recognises landowners whose names are
registered in government records, but ownership of land is concentrated mostly in male
hands in our patriarchal society. Thus women cultivators suffer because of lack of legal
entitlement to land (and other assets such as house, livestock, etc), and receive no
compensation from government under the LA Act.
It has been estimated by Bina Agarwal (1994) that in India, landownership in favour of
women is not more than 2 per cent. This is a severe impediment to efficiency in agriculture
for women cultivators because in the absence of title women cannot get credit or be entitled
to irrigation and other inputs, especially technology. In addition to improved production, the
clinching argument in favour of land titles to women is the stability and security it provides,
the protection it affords from marital violence, and the bargaining power it gives women in
household decision making and in the labour market for wages. However without title to
land, women are not recognized, even by the state, as clients for extension services or as
candidates for membership in institutions such as co-operative societies.
Before 1956 devolution of both acquired and inherited property was governed by the
personal laws of the community. Although equal rights were granted to women in acquired
property through the Hindu Succession Act of 1956, rights in inherited agricultural land were
3
http://zeenews.india.com/news/eco-news/56-proposals-under-forest-act-given-
clearance_949873.html
 9

specifically exempted from the Act, and were made subject to tenancy and land reform laws
of the states. For example, in the tenurial laws of Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and
Kashmir, Punjab, Delhi and Uttar Pradesh, the specified rules of devolution show a strong
preference for agnatic succession, with a priority for agnatic males.
Section 46(1) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 holds, "the restrictions imposed by Section
45 on letting by a holder of Khudkasht and on sub-letting by a tenant shall not apply to (a) a
minor, or (b) a lunatic, or (c) an idiot, or (d) a woman (other than married). This is
discriminatory and demeaning as women have been placed at par with lunatics and idiots.
Changes in 2005 - Little effort was made until 2005 to do away with these discriminatory
laws. Finally after 50 years of the 1956 Hindu Succession Act (HSA), the Government
addressed some persisting gender inequalities in the HSA by bringing in the Hindu
Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. The 2005 Act brings all agricultural land on par with
other property and makes Hindu women's inheritance rights in land legally equal to men's
across States, overriding any inconsistent State laws. This can benefit millions of women
dependent on agriculture for survival. Unfortunately, neither the Department of Land
Resources in GOI nor the Ministry of Women & Child Development has issued even a single
circular asking states to implement the law. States too have by and large ignored its
implementation. The result is that anti-women laws and practices merrily continue in the
States. As land records are not corrected as per the new Succession Act of 2005, women
farmers are ignored in matters of compensation, and their dependence on men continues.
Even though the legal framework has been amended in favour of women as recently as 2005
with the deletion of the gender discriminatory clause on agricultural land, women often forgo
their claims in anticipation of support from their natal family in case of marital problems or
their marriages breaking up, even though such support may not actually materialize. Women
also face impediments in operationalising the statutory codes and getting their names
included in the records. Also, ownership does not always translate into control, as is the
experience of matrilineal societies of Meghalaya where control is exercised by the maternal
uncle. Even when women have mutations of land in their names, they may not have actual
control over that land. Decision making in cropping patterns, sale, mortgage and the
purchase of land or the instruments of production remains in the hands of the men of the
household.
Thus the issue is not only legal, it is also cultural. As women’s control over loans, income and
assets goes down, their access to social resources such as knowledge, power and prestige
diminishes. Disparity in gender status gets intensified with the emergence and deepening of
other forms of stratification. Subordination and seclusion of women is more noticed in
communities where social differentiation and hierarchy based on ownership patterns or on
prestige is more pronounced.
Neither the 2013 LA Act nor the Rules framed under this Act emphasize correction of land
records in conformity with the 2005 Hindu Succession Act. This anomaly needs to be
corrected. Besides, similar corrections are needed in the personal laws of other religious
communities.
To sum up, the 2013 law completely replaced the colonial Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The
new legislation ended the era of forcible acquisitions, enhanced compensation for both land-
owners and landless families significantly, provided for the essential resettlement and
rehabilitation of families displaced on account of land acquisition, curtailed the abuse of the
“urgency” clause, gave farmers a share in the appreciated value of the acquired land, and
gave village councils new powers to decide on land acquisition. There is still room for
improvement so that the whole process is not dilatory and does not retard economic growth.
It is hoped that the present government will take steps to reduce the delay and thus cut down
on unnecessary costs by simplifying the procedure so that land is available to the Requiring
body as early as possible, and at the same time ensuring that the affected families are fully
compensated and properly rehabilitated. They too should benefit from the project, so that
 10

parting away with their land and assets no longer is seen as a trauma by them in future.
Besides, landowners should benefit from future escalation in land prices, project affected
families must be made literate, and trained for semiskilled or skilled jobs, and land records
must be updated as per the new Hindu Succession Act in the interest of women's
empowerment.

References
Agarwal B., 1994. Gender and command over property: A critical gap in economic
analysis and policy in South Asia World development, 22(10): 1455-1478.
Bhattacharya Poulomi 2013. Determinants of Land Leasing Decisions in Shrimp
Farming in West Bengal, India: Implications for Government Policy Asian
Journal of Agriculture and Development 10.1, 79-90.
Dua Divya 2017.  Can Amaravati set land pooling example for a city built from
scratch? available at http://citizenmatters.in/can-amaravati-set-land-pooling-example-for-
a-city-built-from-scratch-4568, last accessed on 31 August 2018.
Hall Derek 2013. Primitive Accumulation, Accumulation by Dispossession and the
Global Land Grab Third World Quarterly, (34)9: 1582–1604
Sathe Dhanmanjiri 2017. Land Acquisition and Beyond, The Farmers’ Perspective
Economic & Political Weekly, April 1
Saxena N C 2011. Land Acquisition for Industry Cfoconnect June 2011, available at
http://cfo-connect.com/images/article/tt-land-acquisition-june2011.pdf, last accessed on 31
August 2018.
Saxena N C 2012. Agriculture in India: Are Women Benefiting, available at
http://inclusion.skoch.in/story/106/agriculture-in-india-are-women-benefiting-406.html,
last accessed on 31 August 2018.
Saxena N C 2012. Land Acquisition for Infrastructure and Industry Yojana, August
Saxena, N C 2014. Getting Out Of The Woods Outlook, 15 October
Saxena N C 2016. Should we amend the land acquisition act? Economic Times
December 04, available at
https://auto.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/industry/should-we-amend-the-land-
acquisition-act/55785134, last accessed on 31 August 2018.
Saxena N C 2006. Resettlement and Rehabilitation: The New Indian Policy The
Economics and Politics of Resettlement in India: 23.
Saxena, Naresh C., S Parasuraman, Promode Kant, and Amita Baviskar 2010. Report of
the four member committee for investigation into the proposal submitted by
the Orissa mining company for bauxite mining in Niyamgiri Unpublished Report
submitted to Ministry of Environment and Forests, GoI 
Saxena N C 2008. R&R for Mining Industry Needs a Separate National
Policy Policies, Statutes & Legislation in Mines 20: 14
Saxena Naresh C. 2012. Women, Land and Agriculture in Rural India, UN Women,
available at http://asiapacific.unwomen.org/en/digital-
library/publications/2012/10/women-land-and-agriculture-in-rural-india, last accessed on
31 August 2018.
Saxena Naresh C. 2012. Women’s Rights to Forest Spaces and Resources UN
Women, available at http://asiapacific.unwomen.org/en/digital-
library/publications/2012/8/women-s-rights-to-forest-spaces-and-resources, last accessed
on 31 August 2018.
 11

Saxena Naresh C. 2014. Land Acquisition for Infrastructure & Industry - Inclusion,
Oct 31, available at http://inclusion.skoch.in/story/332/land-acquisition-for-infrastructure-
&-industry-632.html, last accessed on 31 August 2018.
Verma N M P and Vinit Kumar 2012. A Study of Indian SEZs Development of Special
Economic Zones in India: Policies and issues: 96.