Changing times: When the BJP said the UPA land Bill does not do enough for the poor and the farmers

In December last year, the Modi government promulgated an ordinance amending the Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Bill, which had originally been passed in August 2013. Its provisions included the acquisition of land for private institutions such as hospitals and educational institutions and doing away with social impact assessments in areas that were earmarked for acquisition. In 2013, when former Union Rural Development Minister in the United Progressive Alliance government, Jairam Ramesh introduced the bill, Rajnath Singh, then party president of the Bharatiya Janata Party, initiated the discussion and listed sections of the bill that the party felt did not do enough for farmers and the poor. He stated that  the Bill did not display enough seriousness about the interests of  farmers and the poor; its idea of `public purpose’ was only a guise for acquiring land for private industry and SEZs; social impact assessment must always be carried out and the urgency clause that bypassed this provision must be done away with; a retrospective clause for farmers who had not yet received compensation when the process of acquisition was not yet complete must be included; and compensation under the Bill must be enhanced. The officialsynopsis of the translation of the speech, which was delivered in Hindi, is reproduced below.

The Land Acquisition Bill has come up for discussion in the House after a long wait. I have studied this Bill in details. But I have found that there are several important aspects which have completely been ignored. The seriousness with which the interests of the farmers, the poor should have been taken into account has not been done. Rather more emphasis has been given on cities and industries. Though I am not against cities and industries, they should do get all the facilities, at the same time efforts should be made to solve the problems being faced by villages, poor and farmers. Although the Government has made efforts to make this Bill slightly better than the previous ones, it seems that this Bill has lost its original objective.

We cannot link land with economic activities alone, farmers are emotionally and culturally attached to it. The manner in which there has been indiscriminate acquisition of land in the name of economic development pre and post Independence has created resentment among the farmers. Land acquisition has led to displacement of about 6.5 crore farmers. This Bill has been amended thrice i.e. in 1962, 1967 and 1984 since 1894. The farmers are of the view that their land should be acquired in such a manner that it should not create any crisis for their family in future. The Government should pay attention towards this. Despite the above amendments the farmers of the country did not get any relief.

This Bill finds a way out for acquisition of land for private sector through inclusion of the term ‘public purpose’ in this Bill. A long list of public purposes has been appended to this Bill which includes infrastructure also. This term is so comprehensive that it includes commercial activities also but I would like to refer to the special economic zone. The entire House knows the objective behind setting up special economic zones. So many SEZs have been set up in the country but many of them are yet non functional. Farmers land was acquired indiscriminately for the purpose.

The term ‘public purpose’ is ambiguous. I want clarification on this. The norms described for land acquisition for government and private projects are not uniformed. What was the problem in making them uniform I would also like a clarification on this. I have an apprehension that the forceful acquisition of land would continue even after this Bill. The process of social impact assessment and environmental impact assessment should be initiated in a time bound manner before acquisition of the land.

In our country about 20 per cent cases related to land titles are sub-judiced. There is no provision in the Bill to dispose of such cases. I would like to know from the Hon’ble Minister on this. I would like to draw the attention towards clause 9 of the Bill which exempts social impact assessment invoking the urgency provisions under section 38. This is the problem which is being faced by our villages in regard to land acquisition. How this problem going to be solved, I would like to know from the Minister. I suggest that clause 9 should be done away with.

Clause10 of this Bill mentions that no irrigated multi cropped land should be acquired but sub- section (2) of section 2 makes a way for acquisition of such land. We are of the view that cultivable land should not be acquired without the consent of concerned farmers. I also suggest that this Bill should be implemented with a retrospective effect in such cases also where farmers have not yet taken compensation or the Government has not yet paid compensation or the process of acquisition has not been completed. Clause 39 of this Bill is very dangerous where district collector can take possession of land 30 days after publishing a notice for the same invoking urgency provisions. I want that this clause should also be done away with. The clause 45 of this Bill mentions that land acquisition, rehabilitation and resettlement authority would be set up but this is not clear whether such an authority would be set up at state level or central level. We are of the view that such an authority should be set up at district level or at the most at commissionery level, because most of the land disputes are at district level. Such cases should be disposed of quickly.

Clause 95 of the Bill is related to the return of unutilized land. It says that if the land acquired remains utilized for a period of ten years from the date of taking over the possession the same shall return to the land bank of the Government. I want to know can’t this land be returned to the concerned farmers. I would also like a clarification from the hon’ble Minister in this regard.

I also wish to register my complaint regarding the norms prescribed for providing compensation because amount of compensation is very less. We see that so many poor people are living in Jhuggi Jhoparis miserable condition in metropolitan cities including Delhi. There is no provision for such people in this Bill. 90 per cent of acquisition is done in this country under the laws enacted by the centre and state governments but it is strange that the provisions of this bill will not be applicable to these laws. What is the rationale behind keeping these laws outside purview ofthis Bill?

I would also like to suggest that a provision should be made in this Bill as to whether the land of the farmers should be taken on lease or acquired be left on the consent of the farmers. Finally, I would like to urge upon the Hon’ble Minister to kindly accede to as many amendments as he could at his discretion so as to make this Bill farmer friendly.