All about the new land acquisition Bill

Jyotika Sood
@Jyotika_Sood
|
Thursday 29 August 2013

Proposed law will replace the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 and unlike the British-era Act it
provides for rehabilitation and resettlement as well

What is the land acquisition Bill 2011 all about?

The Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (LARR) Bill, 2011 is a proposed law
that lays down various provisions and directions to be followed while acquiring land
anywhere in the country. The term 'land acquisition' means forcible acquisition of land from
an unwilling seller and is distinct from a land purchase from a willing seller.

The Bill merges the land acquisition law with rehabilitation and resettlement (R&R)
provisions; the UPA government had earlier proposed two separate bills. The new proposed
law replaces over-a-century-old Land Acquisition Act of 1894 which has various
shortcomings—it has no resettlement and rehabilitation provisions for those displaced by the
land acquisition and provides low rates of compensation to the land owners.

LARR Bill, 2011 was introduced in Lok Sabha on September 7, 2011. The present rural
minister, Jairam Ramesh, has renamed LARR Bill, 2011 as “Right to Fair Compensation,
Resettlement, Rehabilitation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Bill 2012”. The
government claims that the proposed law balances the need for facilitating land acquisition
for various public purposes with the concerns of farmers and people whose livelihood
depends on the land so acquired.

So far, the government has moved 165 amendments; the opposition has moved as many as
116

Important provisions of the law

a. Compensation in rural areas would be calculated by multiplying market value by two and adding assets attached to
the land or building and adding a solatium. In urban areas it would be market value plus assets attached to the land and
solatium
b. Developers to get the consent of up to 80 per cent of people whose land is acquired for private projects. For PPP
projects, the approval of 70 per cent of land owners is mandatory
c. Multi-cropped, irrigated land cannot be acquired unless it is for defence or emergency caused by natural calamity
d. Land should be returned to original owner if not used in five years for the purpose for which it is acquired, subject
to the refund of one-fourth of the compensation amount with interest from date of payment
e. The government will not acquire land for private companies for private purpose
f. The Bill mandates social impact assessment when government proposes acquisition of land over 40.46 ha, which
should be conducted in consultation with the gram sabha (village council). It also provides for the appointment of an
administrator for rehabilitation
g. Both land acquisition and resettlement and rehabilitation provisions of the Bill will apply to projects when
government acquires land for its own use or on behalf of private companies for stated public purpose, including PPP
projects. In case companies directly acquire over 40 ha from land owners, they will be responsible for resettlement and
rehabilitation
h. The Bill also proposes amenities like schools, health centres and civic infrastructure in places where project-
affected people are resettled
 i. The urgency clause should be exercised in the rarest of rare cases like national defence or for resettlement
purposes. This means no land acquisition can proceed without public hearing

(For details read: Is new land bill up to mark?)

What were the key suggestions of parliamentary standing committee on rural

development on the Bill?

a. A restrictive definition of public purpose which means development of infrastructure by the public agencies with
public funds only
b. No forcible acquisition for private projects, or for public-private partnership (PPP) projects, which cannot to be
categorized as public
c. No forcible acquisition of agricultural land for non-agricultural purpose, including single crop growing farmland
d. All 16 Central Acts that are presently exempted from LARR 2011 provisions should be brought under the purview
of the new Act
e. All studies like Environment Impact Assessment and expert committee appraisal is done in consultation with the
gram sabhas and the corresponding reports should be made available to the gram sabhas
f. If land is not used till five years from the date of possession then it should be returned to the land owners
g. Re-examination of rehabilitation and resettlement provisions

(For details read: Prize for tillers, loss for industry)

Q What are the key concerns about this new law?

a. Gram Sabha and Basti Sabha don’t have legal right to decide the nature of public purpose. As a result misuse of
land may occur.
b. Acquisition for Private and PPP Projects:lLand reform activists fear that the state would again play a role of
facilitators under garb of PPP project
c. The Bill leaves it to the state governments to decide if non-irrigated, rain-fed, single-crop land can be acquired or
not. India has 75% of the agricultural land as rain fed and most of it is single cropped. Such land is mostly held by
Dalits, Adivasis and marginal farmers
d. Ministry of rural development wants to exclude 13 out of 16 Acts including Industrial Development Act, Land
Acquisition (Mines) Act, National Highways Act and others from the purview of the new Act
e. Role and Consent of Gram and Basti Sabha not required in case of linear projects such as railways, highways,
major district roads, power lines, and irrigation canals
f. Ministry retains the provisions for state land bank. The provision is likely to be misused as large-scale acquisition
took place in the past and later the so acquired land parcels were illegally transferred to corporations for real estate and
other purposes

A selection of related reports and documents on Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and
Resettlement B

http://www.downtoearth.org.in
Land acquisition in India
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Land acquisition in India refers to the process by which the union or a state government in
India acquires private land for the purpose of industrialisation, development of infrastructural
facilities or urbanisation of the private land, and provides compensation to the affected land
owners and their rehabilitation and resettlement.[1]

Land acquisition in India is governed by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARR) and which came into
force from 1 January 2014.[2] Till 2013, land acquisition in India was governed by Land
Acquisition Act of 1894. On 31 December 2014, the President of India promulgated an
ordinance with an official mandate to "meet the twin objectives of farmer welfare; along with
expeditiously meeting the strategic and developmental needs of the country". An amendment
bill was then introduced in Parliament to endorse the Ordinance. Lok Sabha passed the bill
but the same is still lying for passage by the Rajya Sabha. On 30 May 2015, President of
India promulgated the amendment ordinance for third time.[3][4][5][6][7] Union Government of
India has also made and notified the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Social Impact Assessment and Consent) Rules,
2014 under the Act to regulate the procedure.[8] The land acquisition in Jammu and Kashmir
is governed by the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act 1934.[9]

Contents
 1 Purpose of LARR
 2 Issues
o 2.1 Eminent Domain
o 2.2 Legislative changes
o 2.3 Monetary compensation
o 2.4 Delayed projects
o 2.5 Consequences
o 2.6 Proposed Amendments
 3 Alternatives
 4 See also
 5 References

Purpose of LARR

As per the Act, the union or state governments can acquire lands for its own use, hold and
control, including for public sector undertakings and for "public purpose", and shall include
the following purposes:

 for strategic purposes relating to naval, military, air force, and armed forces of the
Union, including central paramilitary forces or any work vital to national security or
defence of India or State police, safety of the people;
 for infrastructure projects as defined under the Act;
 project for project affected families;
 project for housing for such income groups, as may be specified from time to time by
the appropriate Government;
  project for planned development or the improvement of village sites or any site in the
urban areas or provision of land for residential purposes for the weaker sections in
rural and urban areas;
 project for residential purposes to the poor or landless or to persons residing in areas
affected by natural calamities, or to persons displaced or affected by reason of the
implementation of any scheme undertaken by the Government, any local authority or
a corporation owned or controlled by the State.[1]

The land can be acquired for private bodies for certain purposes:

 for public private partnership projects, where the ownership of the land continues to
vest with the Government, for public purpose as defined in the Act;
 for private companies for public purpose.[1]

Issues

Some of the important issues surrounding the Land Acquisition are discussed below.[10] The
major land acquisition and conflicts happen in the densely populated areas of the countryside.

Eminent Domain

The power to take property from the individual is rooted in the idea of eminent domain. The
doctrine of eminent domain states, the sovereign can do anything, if the act of sovereign
involves public interest. The doctrine empowers the sovereign to acquire private land for a
public use, provided the public nature of the usage can be demonstrated beyond doubt. The
doctrine is based on the following two Latin maxims, (1) Salus populi suprema lex (Welfare
of the People Is the Paramount Law) and (2) Necessitas publica major est quam (Public
Necessity Is Greater Than Private Necessity).[11] In the history of modern India, this doctrine
was challenged twice (broadly speaking) once when land reform was initiated and another
time when Banks were nationalized.[12]

The Constitution of India originally provided the right to property (which includes land)
under Articles 19 and 31. Article 19 guaranteed that all citizens have the right to acquire, hold
and dispose of property. Article 31 stated that "no person shall be deprived of his property
save by authority of law." It also indicated that compensation would be paid to a person
whose property has been taken for public purposes (often subject to wide range of meaning).
The Forty-Fourth Amendment of 1978 deleted the right to property from the list of
fundamental rights with an introduction of a new provision, Article 300-A, which provided
that "no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law" (Constitution 44th
Amendment, w.e.f. 10.6.1979). The amendment ensured that the right to property‟ is no
longer a fundamental right but rather a constitutional/legal right/as a statutory right and in the
event of breach, the remedy available to an aggrieved person is through the High Court under
Article 226 of the Indian Constitution and not the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the
Constitution. State must pay compensation at the market value for such land, building or
structure acquired (Inserted by Constitution, Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964, the same
can be found in the earlier rulings when property right was a fundamental right (such as 1954
AIR 170, 1954 SCR 558, which propounded that the word "Compensation" deployed in
Article 31(2) implied full compensation, that is the market value of the property at the time of
the acquisition. The Legislature must "ensure that what is determined as payable must be
compensation, that is, a just equivalent of what the owner has been deprived of"). Elsewhere,
Justice, Reddy, O Chinnappa ruled (State Of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan Tale on 7 July
1983) that the fundamental right to property has been abolished because of its incompatibility
with the goals of "justice" social, economic and political and "equality of status and of
opportunity" and with the establishment of "a socialist democratic republic, as contemplated
by the Constitution. There is no reason why a new concept of property should be introduced
in the place of the old so as to bring in its wake the vestiges of the doctrine of Laissez Faire
and create, in the name of efficiency, a new oligarchy.[13] Efficiency has many facets and one
is yet to discover an infallible test of efficiency to suit the widely differing needs of a
developing society such as ours" (1983 AIR 803, 1983 SCR (3) 327). The concept of
efficiency has been introduced by Justice Reddy, O Chinnappa, very interestingly coupled
with the condition of infallibility (Dey Biswas 2014, 14-15 footnote).

In India, with this introduction of ‘social’ elements to the property rights, a new phase had
begun. K. K. Mathew, justice of KesavanandaBharati vs State of Kerala (cited in [14]) stated
this precisely: "Property in consumable goods or means of production worked by their
owners (use aspects of property) were justified as necessary condition of a free and
purposeful life; but when property gave power not only over things but through things over
persons (power aspect of property) also, it was not justified as it was an instrument of
servitude rather than freedom" (See [15] for more on ‘Social’ Element of Property Rights as a
Guiding Problem).

Legislative changes

Main article: The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

The 2013 Act focuses on providing not only compensation to the land owners, but also
extend rehabilitation and resettlement benefits to livelihood looser from the land, which shall
be in addition to the minimum compensation. The minimum compensation to be paid to the
land owners is based on a multiple of market value and other factors laid down in the Act.
The Act forbids or regulates land acquisition when such acquisition would include multi-crop
irrigated area. The Act changed the norms for acquisition of land for use by private
companies or in case of public-private partnerships, including compulsory approval of 80%
of the landowners. The Act also introduced changes in the land acquisition process, including
a compulsory social-impact study, which need to be conducted before an acquisition is made.
[16]

The new law, also has some serious shortcomings as regards its provisions for socioeconomic
impact assessment and it has also bypassed the constitutional local self governments by not
recognizing them as "appropriate governments" in matters of land acquisition.[17]

Monetary compensation

Major Indian infrastructure projects such as the Yamuna Expressway have paid about ₹2800
crore (US$500 million) for land,[18] or over US$25,000 per acre between 2007 and 2009. For
context purposes, this may be compared with land prices elsewhere in the world:

 According to The Financial Times, in 2008, the farmland prices in France were Euro
6,000 per hectare ($2,430 per acre; ₹1,09,350 per acre).[19]
  According to the United States Department of Agriculture, as of January 2010, the
average farmland value in the United States was $2,140 per acre (₹96,300 per acre).
The farmland prices in the United States varied between different parts of the country,
ranging between $480 per acre to $4,690 per acre.[20]

A 2010 report by the Government of India, on labor whose livelihood depends on agricultural
land, claims that, per 2009 data collected across all states in India, the all-India annual
average daily wage rates in agricultural occupations ranged between ₹ [21] 53 to 117 per day
for men working in farms (US$354 to 780 per year), and between ₹41 to 72 per day for
women working in farms (US$274 to 480 per year). This wage rate in rural India study
included the following agricultural operations common in India: ploughing, sowing, weeding,
transplanting, harvesting, winnowing, threshing, picking, herdsmen, tractor driver, unskilled
help, masonry, etc.

The compensation for the acquired land is based on the value of the agricultural land,
however price increases have been ignored. The land value would increase many times,
which the current buyer would not benefit from.[22] Secondly, if the prices are left for the
market to determine, the small peasants could never influence the big corporate tycoons. Also
it is mostly judiciary who has awarded higher compensation then bureaucracy (Singh 2007).

Delayed projects

Delayed projects due to mass unrest have caused a damaging effect to the growth and
development of companies and the economy as a whole. Earlier states like Maharashtra,
Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Andhra Pradesh had been an attractive place for investors, but
the present day revolts have shown that land acquisition in some states pose problems.[23]

Consequences

The consequences of land acquisition in India are manifold.The empirical and theoretical
studies on displacement through the acquisition of land by the government for development
projects have so far focussed on the direct and immediate adverse consequences of land
acquisition.[24] Most of the analytical as well as the descriptive accounts of the immediate
consequences of land acquisition for development projects draws heavily from Michael
Cernea’s ‘impoverishment risk model’, which broadly enumerated eight ‘risks’ or
‘dimensions’ of development-induced displacement. These eight risks are very much direct
and basic in nature which are (i) landlessness, (ii) joblessness, (iii) marginalization, (iv) loss
of access to common property resources, (v) increased morbidity and mortality, (vi) food
insecurity, (vii) homelessness and (viii) social disarticulation ([25]). Recently L.K. Mahapatra
has added ‘loss of education’ as another impoverishment risk in situations of displacement
(Mahapatra 1999).

But apart from these direct and immediate effects of land acquisition there are more subtle
and indirect effects of this coercive and centralized legal procedure, which have a bearing on
various decentralised and participatory democratic processes, and institutions of the state
power. Land reforms and the Panchayati raj institutions are the two most important areas,
which are being vitiated by land acquisition.[26] Of all the states of India, the consequences
and controversies around land acquisition in West Bengal has recently gained a lot of national
and international attention. The peasant resistances against governmental land expropriation
in Singur(a place in the Hoogly district) and Nandigram(a place in the East Medinipur
district) has finally led to the fall of the communist party(Marxist) led government in West
Bengal, which ruled the state through democratic election for 34 years.The communist led
left front government of West Bengal under the economic liberalisation policy adopted by the
Central/Union government of the country shifted from its pro-farmer policy and took to the
capitalist path of industrial development, which at the micro-levels endangered the food
security of the small and marginal farmers as well as sharecroppers who formed the vote
bank of the left front government of West Bengal[27] The new anti-communist Trinamul
Congress led government of West Bengal which came to power in the state in 2011 through a
massive electoral victory is yet to develop any comprehensive resettlement and rehabilitation
policy for the thousands of families affected by various development projects. The new
government has enacted a law on 14 June 2011, in the West Bengal Assembly named ‘Singur
Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011’. With this law, the West Bengal
government has reacquired about 1000 acres of farmland from the Tatas which wasgiven to
the company for building a small-car manufacturing factory in 2006 by the then Left Front
government. The Trinamul government’s intention was to return 400 acres of farmland to the
‘unwilling’ farmers around whom the agitation against the Left Front government was
organised by the Trinamul Congress party. However, now the whole issue seems to have
fallen into a long legal battle between the present state government and the Tatas, as the latter
has challenged the ‘Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act’ in the court. As a
result, the Trinamul government has not yet been able to return the land to those ‘unwilling
farmers’ nor have they received any compensation (The Statesman, 12 January 2012).In
another case of governmental land acquisition for housing at North 24 Parganas district of
West Bengal, the farmers began to cultivate their farmland which were acquired but remained
unutilised. According to media report these farmers were assured by the Trinamul Congress
party leaders before the election that their land, which is about 1687 acres would be returned
to them if the party could come to power. However, now these farmers are turning their backs
to the Trinamul Congress, since the party has not kept its pre-election promise (The
Statesman, 11 February 2012). Under the above disturbing episodes, it may be worthwhile to
narrate the glaring incident of the opposition levelled by Mamata Banerjee, the present chief
minister of West Bengal to the draft Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill 2007 in the Lok
Sabha. At that time Miss Mamata Banerjee was the Railway Minister of the Central
Government. She opposed to a clause of the bill which empowered private companies to
acquire up to 70 per cent land directly from farmers and landowners. The remaining 30 per
cent could be acquired by the state government. Miss Banerjee wanted private companies to
buy 100 per cent of the land, according to a report (The Statesman, 26 July 2009). It seemed
that Miss Banerjee would have allowed the amended Bill to be passed if the Lok Sabha
agreed to modify the 70/30 proportion to 100 per cent purchase by the companies under the
principleof willing-buyer-willing-seller.[28]

Eminent domain doctrine has been widely used in India since the era of Independence, with
over 21.6 million people in the period of 1951-90.[29] They have been displaced with large-
scale projects like dams, canals, thermal plants, sanctuaries, industrial facilities, and mining
(Pellissery and Dey Biswas 2012, pp 32–54). These occurrences are generally categorized as
"development-induced displacement".

The process of land acquisition in India has proven unpopular with the citizenry. The amount
reimbursed is fairly low with regard to the current index of prices prevailing in the economy.
Furthermore, due to the low level of human capital of the displaced people, they often fail to
find adequate employment ([30]).
The draft of the government’s National Policy for Rehabilitation states that a figure around
75% of the displaced people since 1951 are still awaiting rehabilitation.[31] However, it should
be noted that displacement is only being considered with regard to "Direct Displacement".
These rehabilitation policies do not cover fishermen, landless laborers, and artisans. Roughly
one in ten Indian tribals is a displaced person. Dam projects have displaced close to a million
Adivasis, with similar woe for displaced Dalits. Some estimate suggests 40 percent of
displaced people are of tribal origins (Fernandes, 2008).

There have been a rising number of political and social protests against the acquisition of
land by various industrialists. They have ranged from Bengal, Karnataka, and Uttar Pradesh
in the recent past.[32] The acquisition of 997 acres of land by Tata motors in Bengal in order to
set up a factory for the cheapest car in India was protested (Singur Tata Nano controversy).At
least a decade before the Singur episode similar events occurred in West Bengal, although the
opposition parties and other civil society organisations remained silent at that time. [33]
Similarly, the Sardar Sarovar Dam project on the river Narmada was planned on acquired
land, though the project was later canceled by the World Bank (Bøås and McNeill 2003, pp
121-122, 125, 142-43 and more).

The Land Acquisition Act of 1894 allowed the government to acquire private lands. It is the
only legislation pertaining to land acquisition which, though amended several times, has
failed to serve its purpose. Under the 1894 Act, displaced people were only liable for
monetary compensation linked with market value of the land in question, which was still
quite minimal considering circle rates are often misleading (Singh 2007). Land acquisition
related conflicts during the post-reform period in India has shown three distinctive
tendencies; (1) Technocracy and Bundle of Rights, (2) Power-land Regulation Nexus, and (3)
Disappearing Commons.[34]

Displaced Tribals [35]

Project State Displaced Population Tribal Percentage
Karjan Gujarat 11,600 100
Sardar Sarovar Gujarat 2,00,000 57.6
Maheshwar Madhya Pradesh 20,000 60
Bodhghat Madhya Pradesh 12,700 73.91
Icha Bihar 30,800 80
Chandil Jharkhand 37,600 87.92
Koel Karo Bihar 66,000 88
Mahi Bajaj Sajar Rajasthan 38,400 76.28
Polavaram Andhra Pradesh 1,50,000 52.90
Maithon & Panchet Jharkhand 93,874 56.46
Upper Indravati Odisha 18,500 89.20
Pong Himachal Pradesh 80,000 56.25
Ichampalli Andhra Pradesh 38,100 76.28
Tultuti Maharashtra 13,600 51.61
Daman Ganga Gujarat 8,700 48.70
Bhakra Himachal Pradesh 36,000 34.76
Masan Reservoir Bihar 3,700 31
Ukai Reservoir Gujarat 52,000 18.92
Tamnar chhattisgarh 59999
Proposed Amendments

The current Narendra Modi led National Democratic Alliance government driven Land
Acquisition Amendment Bill[36] in the Lok Sabha on 10 March 2015 has seen a tough
resistance from key position parties in India who have called the proposed amendments "anti
farmer" and "anti poor". The proposed amendments remove requirements for approval from
farmers to proceed with land acquisition under five broad categories of projects.[37] While the
bill was passed in Lok Sabha, it still needs approval from the Rajya Sabha, where the current
government does not have a majority, for the proposed amendments to become effective.

The following are the main "disputation points":[38]

 The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013(Land Acquisition Act, 2013) defines
‘consent’ clause as "land can only be acquired with approval of the 70% of the land
owners for PPP projects and 80% for the private entities. But the proposed
amendments by the Narendra Modi government does away with consent clause for
Industrial corridors, Public Private Partnership projects, Rural Infrastructure,
Affordable housing and defense projects.
 Land Acquisition Act, 2013 states that land not utilised for 5 years should be returned
to the owner, but the amendment proposed by the NDA government intends to change
to 5 years or any period specified at the time of setting up the project.
 While the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 allows private companies to acquire land but
the proposed amendment allows any private entity to acquire land.
 According to the new amendment if any government official conducts any
wrongdoing he or she cannot be prosecuted without prior sanction from the
government.
 Land Acquisition Act, 2013 mandated the social assessment before land acquisition
but the NDA government’s proposed bill does away with this requirement.

The Government came under heavy attacks from opposition parties and farmer organization
for the proposed Land Acquisition bill amendments. The opponents of the Land acquisition
bill claim the bill to be "anti-farmer" and "pro corporate". They claim that the amendments
are aimed at "benefiting the large corporate houses".

The opposition, including the Indian National Congress, has opposed the bill in and out of
Parliament. Sonia Gandhi, the chairperson of the United Progressive Alliance and Indian
National Congress, called the bill "anti-poor" and "anti-farmer". She alleged that the bill will
"break the backbone of India".[39]

Samajwadi party leader Mulayam Singh Yadav said the Modi government is "taking anti-
farmer stand" and is "favoring industrialists". [40]

Not only the opposition parties but also other organization that traditionally supported
Bharatiya Janta Party such as Mazdoor Sangh, Bhartiya Kisan Sangh and Akhil Bhartiya
Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram have come heavily against the amendments proposed by the
Narendra Modi lead NDA government. As per the Bharatiya Kisan Sangh, the Modi
government’s land ordinance tweaks the fundamentals of the The Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 passed by
the UPA government and supported by the BJP two years ago. [41] [42] [43]
Alternatives

One of the alternative proposals to land acquisition is leasing the land from landowners for a
certain lease period. Proponents cite how land acquisition policies by Governments
unwittingly encourage rampant land speculation making the projects expensive since huge
portion of investment would be need to be allocated for land acquisition costs.[44] According
to them, policies of land acquisition gave way to political cronyism where land is acquired
cheaply by securing favors from local governments and sold to industries at steep markup
prices. Leasing land, may also support sustainable project development since the lands need
to be returned to the landowners at the end of the lease period in a condition similar to its
original form with out considerable environmental degradation.[45] When the land is leased
then anybody who has to otherwise give up land or livelihood will be compensated for its
growing valuation over time. In this model, the landowner lends her land to the government
for a steadily-increasing rent, or through an annuity-based system as currently practiced in
Haryana and Uttar Pradesh.[46]

Some industries already follow the model of leasing lands instead of acquiring it. Energy
development projects such as oil & gas extraction usually lease lands. Renewable energy
projects such as Wind Power farms projects often lease the land from land owners instead of
trying to acquire the land which could make the projects prohibitively expensive.

See also
 Land reform in India

References
1.

 "Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Act, 2013". 1, Law Street. The Gazette of India. 26 September 2013. Retrieved 2
June 2015.
  "THE LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT BILL, 2011
– FULL TEXT OF BILL" (PDF). Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India.
  "Land Acquisition Ordinance re-promulgated as Amendment Bill lies with Joint Parl
Committee". 1, Law Street. 1 June 2015. Retrieved 1 June 2015.
  "Land Bill: Opposition, in leadership of Sonia Gandhi, marches towards Rashtrapati
Bhawan" (Post.jagran.com). Retrieved 17 March 2015.
  "Land Acquisition Bill passed in Lok Sabha, Shiv Sena abstains from voting".
intoday.in.
  http://www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/Land%20and%20R%20and%20R/Note%20on
%20Amendments%20of%20LARR%20Bill,%202015.pdf
  "Land Bill: Six facts you need to know". The Hindu.
  "Land Acquisition Rules: Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Social Impact Assessment and Consent) Rules,
2014". 1, Law Street. 8 August 2014. Retrieved 2 June 2015.
  "Early Times: Leading Newspaper Jammu Kashmir, Latest News about Jammu &
Kashmir". www.earlytimes.in. Retrieved 2015-06-02.
  "Research Foundation for Governance in India" (PDF). Research Foundation for
Governance in India.
  Chandrachur, Y. V. 2009. Concise Law Dictionary. New Delhi: LexisNexis
Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur.
  Tripathi, P.K. 1980. "Right of Property After 44th Amendment Better Prosecuted Than
Ever Before."Air Journal (51).
  Bhattacharyya, Debjani (2015). "The history of_eminent domain in colonial thought
and legal practice," Economic and Political Weekly 50 (50).
http://www.academia.edu/17572189/The_history_of_eminent_domain_in_colonial_thought_
and_legal_practice_Special_Section_Article_Economic_and_Political_Weekly_Vol._L_No.5
0_December_2015.
  Bhat, P. I. (2004) Fundamental Rights: A Study of their interrelationships. Kolkata:
Eastern Law House.
  Pellissery, S. 2014. Land rights as social rights. The case of India. FLOOR Working
Paper No. 23. Paper prepared for the workshop "Understanding Southern Welfare – the
B(R)ICS countries", 24–26 November 2014, Center for Interdisciplinary Research (ZiF),
University of Bielefeld, Germany.
  Cernea, M. (2013)Progress in India: New Legislation to Protect Persons Internally
Displaced by Development Projects,21 October 2013.www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/
  Guha,A.(2012);Social Impact Assessment in the Draft Land Acquisition and
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill, 2011: A Critical Overview'.In 'Anthropological Impact
Assessment of Development Initiatives'.(2012) Eds.A.K.Danda,K.K.Basa, K.K.Misra.
Jhargram: Indian National Confederation and Academy of Anthropologists.
  "Spent Rs 2800 cr on land acquisition for Yamuna Expressway: JP Associates".
timesofindia-economictimes.
  "European farmland hits record prices". The Financial Times.
  "Land use, value and management: Agricultural Land Values". USDA Economic
Research Service.
  "WAGE RATES IN RURAL INDIA" (PDF). Ministry of Labor and Employment,
Government of India. 30 March 2010.
  Pranab Bardhan (23 September 2009). "Pranab Bardhan: The vexed issue of land
acquisition". business-standard.com.
  "Land acquisition problems delay major projects". The Hindu. Chennai, India. 23 June
2008.
  B. Terminski, Development-Induced Displacement and Resettlement: Theoretical
Frameworks and Current Challenges, research paper, Geneva, 2013.
  Cernea, M. 1991. Socio-Economic and Cultural Approaches to Involuntary Population
Resettlement. Edited by Michael M. Cernea. World Bank, Oxford University Press.
  Guha, A.Land, Law and the Left: The Saga of Disempowerment of the Peasantry in the
Era of Globalization (2007) pp. 259 + xxviii (index, glossary and references)Concept
Publishing Company:New Delhi ISBN 978-81-8069-398-4
  Guha, A. (2013)The Macro-Costs of Forced Displacement of the Farmers in India:A
Micro-Level Study. European Journal of Development Research, advance online publication,
31 January2013;doi:10.1057/ejdr.2012.37
  http://sch.sagepub.com/content/44/2/205.full.pdf+html
  Sainath, Palagummi (1996). Everybody loves a good drought. Penguin Books. p. 470.
ISBN 0-14-025984-8.
  Chakravorty, Sanjoy. 2013. The Price of Land: Acquisition, Conflict, Consequence.
New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
  "NAC's seven-point test for land acquisition bill". The Hindu. Chennai, India. 10 June
2011.
  Pellissery, Sony and Sattwick Dey Biswas. (2012). Emerging Property Regimes In
India: What It Holds For the Future of Socio-Economic Rights? IRMA Working Paper 234.
  "Peasant Resistance in West Bengal a Decade before Singur and Nandigram". epw.in.
  Pellissery, Sony and Sattwick Dey Biswas. (2012). Emerging Property Regimes In
India: What It Holds For the Future of Socio-Economic Rights? IRMA Working Paper 234.
PP. 9-16.
  Singh, Satyajit (1997). Taming the waters. Oxford University Press. p. 284. ISBN 0-19-
564051-9.
  "Highlights & Amendments Of Land Acquisition Bill". www.dailygkcapsule.com.
  "Key Changes Proposed in the Land Acquisition Ordinance".
  "Controversy Over Land Acquisition Bill: All You Need to Know".
  "Land Bill will ‘break nation’s backbone’, Sonia writes to Gadkari".
  http://www.firstpost.com/politics/entire-opposition-land-acquisition-bill-says-
mulayam-2118759.html
  http://www.firstpost.com/politics/land-bill-blocked-by-rss-heres-why-the-modi-govt-
is-reaching-out-directly-to-the-farmers-2142533.html
  http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-06-22/news/63709018_1_land-
acquisition-ordinance-bhartiya-kisan-sangh-land-bill
  http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/jpc-on-land-billrss-affiliates-lodge-
strong-objections/
  Lease land, don't acquire it, by Swaminathan S Anklesaria Aiyar
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-06-20/news/32335633_1_land-
acquisition-bill-land-prices-conversion-of-agricultural-land Economic Times, 20 June 2012
  Why Land Tenure should be considered in Design of Projects
http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y4307e/y4307e06.htm
46.  Projects must be sustainable for society at large under new land acquisition
law, http://blogs.economictimes.indiatimes.com/et-editorials/projects-must-be-
sustainable-for-society-at-large-under-new-land-acquisition-law/

Categories:
 Land law
 Law in India
 Land management in India

Navigation menu
 Not logged in
 Talk
 Contributions
 Create account
 Log in

 Article
 Talk

 Read
 Edit
 View history

Search
  Main page
 Contents
 Featured content
 Current events
 Random article
 Donate to Wikipedia
 Wikipedia store

Interaction

 Help
 About Wikipedia
 Community portal
 Recent changes
 Contact page

Tools

 What links here

 Related changes
 Upload file
 Special pages
 Permanent link
 Page information
 Wikidata item
 Cite this page

Ordinance Amending the Land Acquisition and R&R Act, 2013: Sell-Out
or Payback Time?
Persis Ginwalla,
Sagar Rabari1

www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv21n1/ordinance.htm

The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR, hereafter referred to as LARR 2013) was the
culmination of decades of struggle by people’s movements against arbitrariness, injustice and
land grab. It appeared that people’s voice was finally reaching the portals of power. And
although the Act did not cede the power of eminent domain in favour of the people, there
were, nevertheless, some rather progressive elements there.

The task for the new government was to implement it in right earnest and to iron out the
difficulties encountered therein. Much to the contrary, yet very much in the ambit of the
expected, has happened. All indications in the run up to the Lok Sabha elections of 2014 were
that the LARR 2013, which was perceived by the corporate world as being ‘anti-growth’ and
‘anti-investment’, would be amended on the double by the new dispensation at the centre.
And in fact the new Rural Development Minister called a meeting of Revenue Ministers of
the states to review the LARR 2013 on June 27th, a mere 40 days since assuming power.2 By
31st December 2014 it stood amended through an Ordinance!! By any standards, the
amendments are regressive and anti-people, anti-farmer and anti-agriculture. All in all, the
amendments in the Ordinance 2014 make the LAQ 1894 look benign in comparison.

At the outset, let us clarify our usage of the term ‘farmer’ or ‘anti-farm’ or ‘agriculture’ in
connection with land acquisition. The ambit of the land acquisition Act – old or new – is
limited to private land holding only. Forests, coasts, rivers, pasturelands, wastelands, lakes
and water bodies – appropriately termed Common Property Resources (CPR) – are not
covered by this Act. Not only are they not covered by the LA Act, they are also not covered
by any policy directive or legal instrument formulated by any government of independent
India even today. Pastoralists, fisherfolk, tribals, landless agriculturalists, saltpan workers –
all communities that depend on these CPRs are hence left out of the provisions of this Act.

Comparison of some key features of the 2013 LARR Act and the Ordinance 2014

CATEGORY LARR 2013 ORDINANCE 2014

Definition of The Act defines private companies
Private Companies as per the Companies Act, 1956. The
provisions of the Act apply to private
companies “with a public purpose”.
Types of projects Sec. 2 (1) (b) (i): Private hospitals,
the Act applies to private educational institutions were
not exempt from the provisions of
the Act viz. consent and SIA
Types of projects The process of obtaining consent,
the provisions conducting a Social Impact
dealing with Social Assessment and determining public
Impact Assessment purpose are applicable to public
and Consent apply projects, PPPs where the ownership
to of the land continues to vest with the
government, and private companies
with a public purpose (Section 2 and
Sections 7-9)
Private company is replaced with
“private entity”. A private entity
being “any entity other than a
Government entity or undertaking
and includes a proprietorship,
partnership, company,
corporation, non-profit
organization or other entity under
any law for the time being in
force”.
Removes private hospitals and
private educational institutions
from the provisions of consent
and SIA
The process of obtaining consent
and conducting SIA are not
applicable to the following
projects:
1. such projects vital to national
security or defense of India and
every part thereof, including
preparation for defense; or
defense production;

2. rural infrastructure including

electrification
 3. affordable housing and housing
for the poor people;

4. industrial corridors

5. infrastructure and social

infrastructure projects including
projects under PPP where the
ownership of the land continues
to vest with the government.*
Types of projects The measures to safeguard food The measures to safeguard food
food security security including the prohibition on security are not applicable to land
provisions apply to acquisition of irrigated and multi- acquisition for the following
cropped land except in rare and projects 1 to 5 as above
demonstrably unavoidable
circumstances is applicable to public
projects, PPPs where the ownership
of the land continues to vest with the
government, and private companies
with a public purpose (Section 10)
When land acquired Where land acquisition proceedings In cases where proceedings have
under the LAA, were initiated under the LAQ, 1894 been delayed due to an injunction
1894 is said to have where an award was made five years or stay issued by a court, or where
lapsed or more prior to the commencement possession has been taken but
of this Act and physical possession compensation is lying deposited
has not been taken or compensation in a court or any account,
has not been paid the proceedings proceedings will not be deemed
will be deemed to have lapsed. Fresh to have lapsed.
proceedings should commence under
the provisions of this Act.
Punishment for If any offense is committed under Proceedings against government
Offenses this Act and it is proven that it has official will require the sanction
been committed with the connivance of the appropriate government.
or consent or can be attributed to
neglect on part of any officer, that
officer will be liable to be proceeded
against.
Power to Remove If any difficulties arise in The Central government has the
Difficulties implementing this Act the Central power to make such orders up to
Government may, by order, make five years from the
such provisions, not inconsistent commencement of this Act.
with the Act, to remove difficulties,
provided that no power shall be
exercised after the expiry of two
years from the commencement of
this Act.
Transparency Notifications pertaining to Omitted
before parliament compensation and R&R needed to be
tabled before the houses of
parliament

Table compiled by Samantha Agarwal

* The definition of infrastructure can be found from the Cabinet Committee on Infrastructure
(http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=80634) See table in Annexure 1.

What do these mean?

Overturning the very purpose of the new Act

The raison de etre of the new Act was the blatant injustice to farmers and others dependent
on land in the process of land acquisition. In that sense, there were a few provisions that were
at the core of the popular demands which got reflected in the new Act.

Firstly, the Act, for the first time responded to the public outcry over the arbitrariness
involved in the unexplained term ‘public purpose’. Many battles have been waged on this
issue. Hence, the term public purpose, in this Act, was applied to explicitly stated items (in
Section 2), which were:

Box 1 ‘Public purpose’ projects exempt from consent and SIA requirements

a) For strategic purposes relating to naval, military, air force, and the armed forces of the
Union, including central paramilitary forces or any work vital to national security or defence
of India or State police, safety of the people; or

b) For infrastructure projects, which includes the following, namely: -

i) All activities or items listed in the notification of the Government of India in the
Department of Economic Affairs (Infrastructure Section) number 13/6/2009-INF, dated
the 27th March, 2012, excluding private hospitals, private educational institutions and
private hotels;

ii) Projects involving agro-processing, supply of inputs to agriculture, warehousing,

cold storage facilities, marketing infrastructure for agriculture and allied activities such
as dairy, fisheries, and meat processing, set up or owned by the appropriate
Government or by a farmers’ cooperative or by an institution set up under a statute;

iii) Projects for industrial corridors or mining activities, national investment and
manufacturing zones, as designated in the National Manufacturing Policy;

iv) Project for water harvesting and water conservation structures, sanitation;

v) Project for Government administered, Government aided educational and research

schemes or institutions;
 vi) Project for sports, health care, tourism, transportation or space programme;

vii) Any infrastructure facility as may be notified in this regard by the Central
Government and after tabling of such notification in Parliament;

c) Project for project affected families;

d) Project for housing for such income groups, as may be specified from time to time by the
appropriate Government;

e) Project for planned development or the improvement of village sites or any site in the
urban areas or provision of land for residential purposes for the weaker sections in rural and
urban areas;

f) Project for residential purposes to the poor or landless or to persons residing in areas
affected by natural calamities, or to persons displaced or affected by reason of the
implementation of any scheme undertaken by the Government, any local authority or a
corporation owned or controlled by the State.

Although these cover vast areas with broad brush strokes, it is nonetheless a beginning. But
more on this later.

Secondly, ‘prior and informed consent’ and Social Impact Assessment (SIA) became
mandatory elements for all projects not covered under the ‘public purpose’ rubric. The
eminent domain powers in the Act of 1894 made the government undertake land acquisitions
without any form of consultation with the people who were to be displaced. The new Act
therefore introduced the consent requirement, albeit with a caveat. The consent requirement
was necessary for PPPs where the ownership of the land continues to vest with the
government, and private companies with a public purpose. It was, however, not applicable to
public sector undertakings and for ‘public purpose’ (mentioned above). Gram sabha consent
was also introduced for the first time in this Act, along with the introduction of a new
category called ‘affected families’, i.e. consent, not only of land owners only, but all such
families that derived their sources of livelihood/income, directly or indirectly, from the said
land. In other words, the participation of the people and their voice in ‘development’ was
legislated.

Along with this, there was also the requirement of a Social Impact Assessment for all projects
which mandated the consent requirement. The SIA was introduced with the objectives of
ascertaining the impacts of the project on the area, its environment and ecology, on the
natural resources of the area, and on the people residing therein, the extent of livelihood
generation for the local population (to be displaced from land-based occupations), and
whether the land being acquired was absolutely the minimum requirement for the project.
Moreover, such an exercise would also help to ascertain the number of ‘affected families’.

Two of these most crucial elements of the new Act stand amended by the Ordinance.
Amendment 3(i) of the ordinance does away with both these requirements i.e. consent and
SIA, for “private hospitals and private educational institutions” (which were earlier not
exempt from these provisions). 3(ii) exempts projects listed in section 10 A which is newly
introduced. Section 10A is part of a new chapter, III A, which is essentially a listing of
projects which will be exempt from the provisions of consent and SIA over and above those
contained within the definition of ‘public purpose’ (Box 1). The list of projects which are
covered by the ‘consent’ and SIA requirement would be shorter that the one exempting
projects from them!! The new exemptions include:

Box 2 Section 10(A) of Chapter III A of the Ordinance exempting further areas from
consent and SIA requirements

a) Such projects vital to national security or defence of India and every part thereof,
including preparation for defence; or defence production;

b) Rural infrastructure including electrification;

c) Affordable housing and housing for the poor people;

d) Industrial corridors; and

e) Infrastructure and social infrastructure projects including projects under public private
partnership where the ownership of land continues to vest with the Government.

The struggle over inclusion of the definition of ‘public purpose’ thus stands negated. This is a
regressive step and dangerous in its implications – for livelihoods, for farm-displaced and low
or semi-skilled workers, for foodgrain production and food security. The above items are also
exempt from the ‘measures to safeguard food security’ viz. the prohibition on acquisition of
multi cropped irrigated land except in “rare and demonstrably unavoidable circumstances”.

At another level, it poses serious threat to the socio-economic fabric of the country. Land /
private property have not been granted the status of fundamental right as in other countries.
Eminent Domain powers were a colonial imposition for exploitative use of land by the
colonial power. The retention of eminent domain powers was to safeguard society from the
pitfalls of zamindari system that was prevalent in India till land reforms were initiated by the
post-independent state. In other words, the eminent domain powers were granted to the state
to be used on the side of the poor and marginalised, the last among the least.3 The history of
the implementation of the LAQ in post-independent India has been anything but. The LARR
2013 was thus a correction of a wrong (although it does not do away with the eminent
domain powers of the state). The Ordinance is reversing this and moving towards facilitating
the transfer of and consolidation of massive amounts of land in the hands of a few corporate /
industrial houses and big industrialists.

Likewise ‘Consent’ and SIA were achievements of decades of struggle by farmers, people’s
organisations, social movements. Removing these eases the road for corporate houses and big
industry. Again, the terms here e.g. ‘projects vital to national security or defence of India’ or
‘rural infrastructure’ or ‘affordable housing’ are fluid and lend themselves to flexible
interpretations to suit then current convenience. Food shortages can also endanger national
security. Ports are also vital for the defence of India. Which can be included and which can
be exempt? This will perforce have to be decided by the judiciary. Which will take 10, 15, 20
years. Perhaps more. In effect, a zero-sum game for big industry with deep pockets.
New element in the Ordinance

The Ordinance has added one new aspect viz. substituting the words ‘private company’ in the
Act with ‘private entity’. This new term, ‘private entity’, has been defined as: “any entity
other than a Government entity or undertaking and includes a proprietorship, partnership,
company, corporation, non-profit organisation or other entity under any law for the time
being in force” (Section 3(ii)(yy)).

The government’s power to acquire land was restricted, earlier, to companies registered under
the Companies Act. This amendment removes this restriction and empowers the government
to acquire it for anyone or anything as per its will, choice or discretion, including an
individual (this has not been spelt out explicitly but is implied). This level of arbitrariness
was perhaps not there even in the LAQ 1894. This must be looked at in conjunction with the
changes in the definition of Company introduced in the new Companies Act, 2013 (see
Annexure 3). There is an addition here: one-person company, private company, small
company and dormant company. In other words, the employment potential of the upcoming
industry had to be weighed against the displacement of the residents from agriculture or any
other land-based occupations. This limitation is now removed and land can now be acquired
even for a business establishment employing 1 person!!

Removing / altering clauses in LARR 2013

Section 24 (2) stipulated that in cases where land had been acquired under the provisions of
LAQ 1894 but physical possession had not been taken or compensation had not been paid,
then the proceedings were to be deemed to have lapsed and the matter would have to be
started afresh under the provisions of this Act. The Ordinance amends this provision by
adding a proviso which essentially means that any delay on account of litigation (court
mandated stay or injunction), or where the compensation amount lies unclaimed in the court,
then such period will not be factored into the computation of the period of limitation.

Section 87 stipulated when and under what conditions a government officer could be held
guilty and proceeded against in a court of law. It removed the earlier constraint, viz. “the
previous sanction of the appropriate Government” and would therefore act as a deterrent to
bureaucrat- businessman nexus which was always detrimental to farmers’ interests. This
section has been amended by the Ordinance and restores the previous limitation of
government sanction for prosecution of a government employee.

Section 101 stipulated that any land acquired but remaining unutilised for a period of 5 years
from the date of possession would revert back to the original owner/s or their heirs or to the
Land Bank of the government. The amendment has substituted the words “a period of 5
years” by the words “a period specified for setting up of any project or for five years,
whichever is later”. This is another major concession to the corporate lobby. The original
stipulation was to remedy the situation where land was acquired without any work being
carried out on it, and farmers rendered landless and jobless, and having to contend with the
fact of their land having appreciated ten or twenty fold since acquisition and feeling cheated
out of their due. The amendment again brings in arbitrariness in acquisition and holding. The
project proponent may stipulate a longer duration (say 10 or 20 years) for setting up of a
project and retain the land (most often for speculation). This is a draconian provision which
will return India to a state of oligarchy and zamindari under a new socio-economic
dispensation with a new set of zamindars.
Section 105 (3) stipulated that in cases of land acquisition (acquired under the provision of
LAQ 1894) where compensation was pending or possession had not been taken,
compensation and R&R provisions as per LARR 2013 had to be made applicable to all
enactments listed in the Fourth Schedule4 of the Act within 1 year from the date of
commencement of this

Act, i.e. by September 2014. The ordinance has extended this limit to 1st January 2015.

Section 105 (4) which mandated that any notification pertaining to compensation and R&R
applicable to the enactments in the Fourth Schedule would have to be tabled (as a draft) in
each House of Parliament, would have to be passed by them and only such notification as has
been passed (with modifications) may be issued and if not passed, then would not be issued.
This section has been omitted in its entirety by the Ordinance. This means that R&R and
compensation matters, the source of much heartburn, had to be transparent and open. The
deletion of this clause means that these would not be brought before the Houses of Parliament
and may be legislated through GRs. How are people to know about these matters? RTI
queries are routinely scuttled under one pretext or the other. The word ‘Transparency’ in the
title of the Act is thus completely negated.

This last issue, legislation and governance through GRs, is important to understand for the
implications for democracy and transparency. ‘Governance through GRs’ was an
indispensable part of the ‘Gujarat Model of Development’, now going national. Important
policy related issues were routinely dealt with through GRs instead of being tabled in the
Assembly and being debated there. Elections, elected representatives, opposition party were
all systematically sidelined and made redundant. ‘Governance through Ordinance’ is but an
imitation of this tried and tested method. 6 months, by when the Ordinance will have to be
put before the Houses of Parliament, is a long time for any and all kinds of political deals.
Unless the people make their voices heard loud and clear. So far, it is one court that the
politicians do fear.

Suppression of civil liberties

Whenever such draconian provisions to existing laws are made, it is imperative that they be
challenged publicly by the people by voicing their dissent, in a non-violent manner and
within the bounds of law. However, in recent times, the state, through its law and order
machinery, has been coming down heavily on such public forms of protest, at least in
Gujarat. Although no violence has been committed by the state the voice of dissent and
protest has been successfully stymied. The routine methods of doing so are: a) denial of
permission by the police for peaceful protests; b) holding activists and leaders into preventive
detention of 24 – 72 hours; c) arrests of activists and leaders and court cases on them; and, d)
routine visits and phone calls by LIB, IB officials to activists and leaders (as a means of
intimidation). In such an atmosphere organising and leading protest programmes becomes
difficult and dissent is successfully silenced. Suppression of civil liberties is thus another
method for furthering the neoliberal agenda.

People’s protests against the Ordinance

The amendments in the Ordinance have been greeted with protests all over the country –
ranging from the ‘padayatra’ (march on foot) from village Palwal (Haryana) to Parliament
House by Ekta Parishad led by P. V Rajagopal who was joined by nearly 5,000 Adivasis, to
the 2-day fast of Anna Hazare in New Delhi, to the massive protest by NAPM in___. In
Gujarat too, the Jameen Adhikar Aandolan Gujarat (JAAG) and Gujarat Khedut Samaj
together with several people’s organisations (Maldhari Vikas Sangathan, ...) organised a
coordinated programme in 138 (out of total 248) blocks of districts of the state. The farmer
organisations and farmers burnt a copy of the Ordinance as a symbol of their rejection of the
amendments and submitted letters addressed to the Prime Minister, the Rural Development
Minister and their local MP to the Mamlatdar (block revenue officer).

The political opposition has, in a rare display of unity, denounced the Ordinance
unequivocally. Looking at the anger against it, especially after the drubbing in the Delhi
Assembly elections, the BJP-led NDA showed a willingness to dilute certain clauses in the
Ordinance, especially the consent clause. However, the opposition has so far stood its ground
demanding the complete repeal of the Ordinance. Despite this it did go ahead and introduced
it in the Lok Sabha (this means that it is no longer an Ordinance but a Bill, the LARR
Amendment Bill, 2015). On 10th March 2015 the LARR Amendment Bill was passed by the
Lok Sabha. However, it faces the test in the Rajya Sabha where the government does not
have the requisite numbers to get it passed and made into a law.

The introduction of the Ordinance in parliament despite tremendous anger against it shows
the arrogance of the government vis-a-vis the people. Country-wide protests against it
debunks the myth (perpetuated by the Prime Minister himself in his ‘Mann ki Baat’ aired on
radio channels) that the amendments are farmer-friendly or rather in the interest of the
farmers. The other myth is related to the fact of it being done on popular demand (“people are
demanding it and we are merely responding to the demands”). This latter claim reveals the
biases and assumptions of the government. Who constitutes the category’ people’? do
farmers, Adivasis, landless labourers, rural people constitute ‘people’? Or does that category
only include corporate / business leaders, industrialists, financiers and bankers, MNC and
TNC personnel, and the urban middle class only?

Conclusion

The amendments in the Ordinance have, at the stroke of a pen, decimated the achievements
of decades of hard struggle by adivasis, farmers, people’s movements against injustice in land
acquisition. All amendments, it is clear, are to the benefit of the corporate lobby and are
farm-unfriendly. 18 industrial corridors all over the country, which will take away land from
a majority of farmers of the country, being exempted from the provisions of this Act reveals
the anti-farm, anti-people attitude of the government. All farmers in the DMIC route falling
in Gujarat (covering 18 districts and 60% of its land) will be adversely affected by these
amendments. Incidentally, the new amendments, by and large, remain true to the demands
voiced by the Revenue Ministers of the states (Annexure 2).

However, it is not that farmers are the only large group coming for severe punishment.
Labour laws are also slated for amendment. While it is not clear what they will be, given the
anti-people or pro-management attitude so far displayed, they will certainly not benefit the
labourers. Dismal as the scenario seems, these amendments could yet prove to be an
opportunity to bring together two huge labouring classes of our society viz. farmers (rural)
and industrial labourers (urban). It could be a moment of reckoning.

Endnotes:
1. Sagar Rabari is an activist associated with the land rights struggles in Gujarat and India
and is Secretary, Khedut Samaj – Gujarat, Ahmedabad.

2. The Conference of State Revenue Ministers was held on 27th June, 2014 at Vigyan
Bhavan under the Chairpersonship of Hon’ble Minister of Rural Development Shri Nitin
Gadkari. Altogether 32 States and Union Territories participated. 12 States/UT namely,
Assam, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Goa, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh,
Maharashtra, Meghalaya, Tamil Nadu and Telangana were represented by their Lt.
Governor / State Deputy Chief Minister in-charge Revenue / Revenue Ministers / Rural
development Minister; the reset were represented by their Principal Secretaries / Secretaries.
The States of Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Nagaland and Sikkim did not attend the
Conference.

3. “...right of eminent domain of the State (is) ... merely an assertion that natural wealth
belongs to the people, to the State” (K. T. Shah, in Constituent Assembly of India Debates
(Proceedings), Vol. VII, 9th December, 1948)

4. Viz. the Ancient Monuments and Archeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (24 of 1958);
the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 (33 of 1962); the Damodar Valley Corporation Act, 1948 (14
of 1948); the Indian Tramways Act, 1886 (11 of 1886); the Land Acquisition (Mines) Act,
1885 (18 of 1885); the Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act, 1978 (33 of 1978); the
National Highways Act, 1956 (48 of 1956); the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines
(Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962); the Requisitioning and
Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (30 of 1952); the Resettlement of Displaced
Persons (Land Acquisition) Act, 1948 (60 of 1948); the Coal Bearing Areas Acquisition and
Development Act, 1957 (20 of 1957); the Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003); and the
Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989).

Annexure 1
Master List of Infrastructure sub-sectors

No. Category Infrastructure sub-sectors

1. Transport Roads and bridges
Ports
Inland Waterways
Airport
Railway Track, tunnels, viaducts, bridges1
Urban Public Transport (except rolling stock in case of urban road
transport)
2. Energy Electricity Generation
Electricity Transmission
Electricity Distribution
Oil pipelines
Oil/Gas/Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) storage facility2
Gas pipelines3
3. Water Sanitation Solid Waste Management
Water supply pipelines
Water treatment plants
 Sewage collection, treatment and disposal system
Irrigation (dams, channels, embankments etc)
Storm Water Drainage System
4. Communication Telecommunication (fixed network)4
Telecommunication towers
5. Social and Education Institutions (capital stock)
Commercial Hospitals (capital stock)5
Infrastructure Three-star or higher category classified hotels located outside cities
with population of more than one million
Common infrastructure for industrial parks, SEZ, tourism facilities
and agriculture markets
Fertilizer (Capital investment)
Post harvest storage infrastructure for agriculture and horticultural
produce including cold storage
Terminal markets
Soil-testing laboratories
Cold Chain6

1. Includes supporting terminal

2. Includes strategic storage of crude oil
3. Includes city gas distribution network
4. Includes optic fibre/cable networks which provide broadband / internet
5. Includes Medical Colleges, Para Medical Training Institutes and Diagnostics Centres
6. Includes cold room facility for farm level pre-cooling, for preservation or storage of
agriculture and allied produce, marine products and meat.

Annexure 2
The Conference of State Revenue Ministers

The Conference of State Revenue Ministers was held on 27th June, 2014 at Vigyan Bhavan
under the Chairpersonship of Hon’ble Minister of Rural Development Shri Nitin Gadkari.
Altogether 32 States and Union Territories participated. 12 States/UT namely, Assam,
Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Goa, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh,
Maharashtra, Meghalaya, Tamil Nadu and Telangana were represented by their Lt.
Governor / State Deputy Chief Minister in-charge Revenue / Revenue Ministers / Rural
development Minister; the reset were represented by their Principal Secretaries / Secretaries.
The States of Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Nagaland and Sikkim did not attend the
Conference.

A summary of the suggestions on the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (RFCTLARR) Act, 2013 made during the
Conference of State Revenue Ministers is as follows:

* The Consent Clause [Section 2(2)] should be re-examined, as ownership of land vests with
the Government in PPP projects. The Consent clause should be removed from PPP projects.
Alternatively, consent requirement may be brought down to 50%.

* Definition of ‘affected family [Section 3(c)] needs to be re-examined as it is very elaborate

and includes ‘livelihood losers’ working in the affected area for three years prior to
acquisition of land and whose primary source of livelihood is affected. The Act provides for
R&R benefits to the affected families. Hence, the provision is likely to be misused in the
absence of clear criteria for determination of affected families.

* Posers of ‘Appropriate Government’ [Section 3(e)] which are with the Central Government
should be delegated to the Union Territories.

* Mandatory Social Impact Assessment study (Sections 4 to 9) should be done away with,
SIA should be confined to large projects/PPP Projects as it may delay the acquisition process.

* The provision to safeguard food security (Section 10) by development of ‘culturable

wastelands’ in lieu of acquisition of ‘multi-cropped irrigated land’ needs to be amended as
States like Delhi, Goa, Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand do not have any wasteland for the
purpose.

* The Retrospective clause (Section 24) which stipulates that land acquisition proceedings
would lapse in case compensation is not paid or physical possession is not taken should be
modified. Payment of compensation as per New Act to the persons specified in Section 4
notification under old Act leads to increased burden on the State exchequer. The provisions
of Section 24 need to be amended as it is leading to litigations.

* The litigation period or period of stay / injunction should be excluded while calculating the
prescribed time limits for completing various proceedings under the Act a.g. Section 24(2),
Section 25.

* Section 26 should be re-examined as determination of market price of land based on

‘agreements to sell’ will lead to speculation in land prices. As such, at present the
compensation paid is higher than market value in Himachal Pradesh, Lakshadweep, Kerala
etc.

* In Section 30(3), the date from which an amount of 12% of market value is to be given,
should be calculated from date of preliminary notification under Section 11 and not from
Section 4 notification which deals with SIA study as stipulated in the Act presently. It also
contravenes the Section 69(2) of the New Act which deals with determination of Award by
authority and stipulates calculation of 12% of market value from date of preliminary
notification under Section 11.

* Under the Urgency Clause (Section 40), the powers to determine ‘any other emergency’
should also be exercised by the State Government. At present, urgency clause is restricted to
‘the Defence of India or National Security or for any other emergency arising out of natural
calamity or any other emergency with the approval of Parliament’.

* Section 46 stipulating R&R obligation in case of private purchase beyond limits specified
by the State Government should be deleted.

* The jurisdiction of Authority (Section 51) should be restricted to dispute resolution only
and not be on determination of award.
* Penalty Provisions (Sections 84-90) including imprisonment of 6 months extendable to 3
years or with fine of with both for the Government Servants are too stringent and may lead to
harassment of civil servants.

* Section 101 dealing with return of unutilised land to the original land owners or heirs
should be deleted.

* The clause specifying sharing of 40% enhanced cost with original land owners (Section
102) when the land is transferred on higher consideration should be deleted as it leads to
disputes.

* Under Section 104 of the Act, a formula for calculating ‘lease amount’ may be given, as a
formula has been prescribed for calculating compensation value.

* There should be threshold for R&R entitlements in Second Schedule and infrastructural
amenities in Third Schedule.

* Under Second Schedule, the provision of ‘land for land’ should be re-examined.

* State Specific Acts dealing with land acquisition should be included in the Fourth Schedule
exempting the enlisted Acts from provisions of the New Act.

Annexure 3
Definitions and changes introduced in the Companies Act 2013

1.1 One-person company: The 2013 Act introduces a new type of entity to the existing list
i.e. apart from forming a public or private limited company, the 2013 Act enables the
formation of a new entity a ‘one-person company’ (OPC). An OPC means a company with
only one person as its member [section 3(1) of 2013 Act].

1.2 Private company: The 2013 Act introduces a change in the definition for a private
company, inter-alia, the new requirement increases the limit of the number of members from
50 to 200. [section 2(68) of 2013 Act].

1.3 Small company: A small company has been defined as a company, other than a public
company.

(i) Paid-up share capital of which does not exceed 50 lakh INR or such higher amount as may
be prescribed which shall not be more than five crore INR

(ii) Turnover of which as per its last profit-and-loss account does not exceed two crore INR
or such higher amount as may be prescribed which shall not be more than 20 crore INR: As
set out in the 2013 Act, this section will not be applicable to the following:

* A holding company or a subsidiary company

* A company registered under section 8

* A company or body corporate governed by any special Act [section 2(85) of 2013 Act]
1.4 Dormant company: The 2013 Act states that a company can be classified as dormant
when it is formed and registered under this 2013 Act for a future project or to hold an asset or
intellectual property and has no significant accounting transaction. Such a company or an
inactive one may apply to the ROC in such manner as may be prescribed for obtaining the
status of a dormant company.[Section 455 of 2013 Act]

(Excerpted from Companies Act, 2013: Key Highlights and Changes, Pricewaterhouse
Coopers)

Click here to return to the April 2015 index.