tary Panel | Ficci | The Financial Express
We have stressed on two points while preparing the Parliamentary Standing Committee Report on the Land Acquisition, Resettlement and Rehabilitation Bill.
First, the government should not buy land even for private public partnership (PPP) projects or even when there is ‘public interest’ involved and, second, as far as possible, agricultural land should not be used for industrial purposes.
However, the draft law asks for 80% consent for acquisition for private projects, 70% consent for PPP projects and no consent for infrastructure projects fully owned and executed by the government. Although the rural development ministry (which is anchoring the Land Acquisition Bill) has not agreed to our opposition to land purchase for PPP projects, the government has accepted our proposal to exempt all agricultural land from acquisition.
In the Bill submitted to the Parliamentary Panel, the government has included the clause that ‘multi-cropped, irrigated’ land is to be acquired only as a last resort. With large-scale diversion of agricultural land for industry purposes, providing food security to such a huge number of people will become difficult as food cannot remain limited to rice and wheat only. Using agricultural land for industrial use should remain the state’s prerogative. The states can demarcate the areas in their master plan for industrial use.
We have also made a case against the creation of a ‘land bank’, proposed in the draft legislation, with the lands acquired from farmers for industrial use which are not put to use within 5 years of purchase. All the members of the Parliamentary Panel had expressed their reservation against the concept of a ‘land bank’ as land is a scarce resource in our country. We had proposed that the unused land be returned to the original owners in case the land is not put to use within 5 years of purchase. The government has agreed to this proposal.
The government has also agreed to our proposal of making gram sabha consent mandatory for acquisition of land in scheduled areas for industry purposes. This is in line with the demands of the civil society organisations. Under a separate provision—the ‘Special Provisions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes’—the Bill says, “In case of acquisition or alienation of any land in scheduled areas, the prior consent of the gram sabha concerned or the panchayats or the autonomous district councils, at the appropriate level in scheduled areas under the fifth schedule of the Constitution, is mandatory.”
We have also pushed for changes in the definition of the term ‘project affected people’. It now includes those who have been working in agricultural lands set to be acquired for industrial use. The government has also agreed to include a new clause in the Bill to encourage states to lease land for projects instead of acquiring it. The new clause leaves it to the states to decide on whether they would be exercising the option to lease land for any project.
However, the government has not supported the panel’s suggestion of having a multi-member committee at the district level to decide on the marketvalue of the land. The Bill empowers the district collector to decide the market value of land in his/her district. The Bill now stipulates a compensation of four times the market value of the land being acquired, payable to landowner while the earlier version proposed a compensation of six times the market value.
We have agreed to support the Land Acquisition Bill as it is long overdue. The proposed law would replace the 117-year-old Land Acquisition Act of 1894. It will also integrate acquisition and resettlement & rehabilitation (R&R) in one policy for the first time ever. The new law is the need of the hour.
The author, a Lok Sabha member, was chairperson, Parliamentary Panel on Land Acquisition Bill
(As told to Sandip Das)
It is ironical that, on the one hand, the government is trying to resolve and speed up the land acquisition process for large projects through the Project Monitoring Group set up to assist Cabinet Committee on Investments while, on the other, it is trying to bring a Bill that will further protract the process of land acquisition. One of the commonest reasons for delay faced by large projects is land acquisition.
The Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill 2012, prescribes a 10-stage process for land acquisition. Starting with the social impact assessment (SIA) study followed by the evaluation of SIA by independent expert group, publication of preliminary notification, hearing of objections, publication of declaration, etc, it would take not less than four years
source:- http://www.financialexpress.com/news/will-the-new-land-acquisition-law-help-/1160593/3
We have stressed on two points while preparing the Parliamentary Standing Committee Report on the Land Acquisition, Resettlement and Rehabilitation Bill.
First, the government should not buy land even for private public partnership (PPP) projects or even when there is ‘public interest’ involved and, second, as far as possible, agricultural land should not be used for industrial purposes.
However, the draft law asks for 80% consent for acquisition for private projects, 70% consent for PPP projects and no consent for infrastructure projects fully owned and executed by the government. Although the rural development ministry (which is anchoring the Land Acquisition Bill) has not agreed to our opposition to land purchase for PPP projects, the government has accepted our proposal to exempt all agricultural land from acquisition.
In the Bill submitted to the Parliamentary Panel, the government has included the clause that ‘multi-cropped, irrigated’ land is to be acquired only as a last resort. With large-scale diversion of agricultural land for industry purposes, providing food security to such a huge number of people will become difficult as food cannot remain limited to rice and wheat only. Using agricultural land for industrial use should remain the state’s prerogative. The states can demarcate the areas in their master plan for industrial use.
We have also made a case against the creation of a ‘land bank’, proposed in the draft legislation, with the lands acquired from farmers for industrial use which are not put to use within 5 years of purchase. All the members of the Parliamentary Panel had expressed their reservation against the concept of a ‘land bank’ as land is a scarce resource in our country. We had proposed that the unused land be returned to the original owners in case the land is not put to use within 5 years of purchase. The government has agreed to this proposal.
The government has also agreed to our proposal of making gram sabha consent mandatory for acquisition of land in scheduled areas for industry purposes. This is in line with the demands of the civil society organisations. Under a separate provision—the ‘Special Provisions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes’—the Bill says, “In case of acquisition or alienation of any land in scheduled areas, the prior consent of the gram sabha concerned or the panchayats or the autonomous district councils, at the appropriate level in scheduled areas under the fifth schedule of the Constitution, is mandatory.”
We have also pushed for changes in the definition of the term ‘project affected people’. It now includes those who have been working in agricultural lands set to be acquired for industrial use. The government has also agreed to include a new clause in the Bill to encourage states to lease land for projects instead of acquiring it. The new clause leaves it to the states to decide on whether they would be exercising the option to lease land for any project.
However, the government has not supported the panel’s suggestion of having a multi-member committee at the district level to decide on the marketvalue of the land. The Bill empowers the district collector to decide the market value of land in his/her district. The Bill now stipulates a compensation of four times the market value of the land being acquired, payable to landowner while the earlier version proposed a compensation of six times the market value.
We have agreed to support the Land Acquisition Bill as it is long overdue. The proposed law would replace the 117-year-old Land Acquisition Act of 1894. It will also integrate acquisition and resettlement & rehabilitation (R&R) in one policy for the first time ever. The new law is the need of the hour.
The author, a Lok Sabha member, was chairperson, Parliamentary Panel on Land Acquisition Bill
(As told to Sandip Das)
It is ironical that, on the one hand, the government is trying to resolve and speed up the land acquisition process for large projects through the Project Monitoring Group set up to assist Cabinet Committee on Investments while, on the other, it is trying to bring a Bill that will further protract the process of land acquisition. One of the commonest reasons for delay faced by large projects is land acquisition.
The Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill 2012, prescribes a 10-stage process for land acquisition. Starting with the social impact assessment (SIA) study followed by the evaluation of SIA by independent expert group, publication of preliminary notification, hearing of objections, publication of declaration, etc, it would take not less than four years
source:- http://www.financialexpress.com/news/will-the-new-land-acquisition-law-help-/1160593/3
