By Abhishek Joshi :
The trend of gobbling land parcels citing national interest around the country without a scant sublimity and sensitivity towards the ecological and environmental disturbances, large scale displacement of people has its roots in the “principle of eminent domain” a practice resulting in “compulsory purchase” / “compulsory resumption” which we has been enforced under the draconian shadow of “Land Acquisition Act 1894” adopted from colonial powers. This act was explicitly created to facilitate government acquisition of private land.
This act since then has been most vehemently opposed than any other, more specifically deployed with its brutality after the opening of the markets under the liberalization regime. The powers vested under this act with the government have been questioned repeatedly forcing absolute interpretations defining “public interest”. Under strictures from Hon Supreme Court and pressure from civic organizations, the principle act was amended by the government through Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill 2007. The amendments include rights of those displaced by land acquisition limiting the definition to acquire land under public purpose. The bill is also supposed to establish Land Acquisition Compensation Disputes Settlement Authority (LACDSA) at State and National Levels to arbitrate any disputes. This to be read in conjunction with Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill also introduced in 2007.
Amongst other things the major succeeding factor in the amendment of Land Acquisition Act 1894 is a compulsory Social Impact Assessment Study if the land acquisition results in the displacement of 400 families in the plains or 200 families in the hill or tribal areas. The area under tribal areas is already protected under the 5th Schedule of the Constitution of India covering 9 States of India which provides for protection to the indigenous people living in scheduled areas.
Both Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill 2007 and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill (2007) have also been mired in controversies. Even in the present shape and form there yet is a massive resistance and hence have concurrently lapsed due for its presentation and subsequent discussions in both houses of parliament. This pertains to valuation of land, fair compensation and addresses issues of displacement.
The Bill grants the LAC DS Authority the powers of civil court by barring them from entertaining any disputes or issuing any injunctions relating to land acquisition. With this barring of civil jurisdiction there is no mechanism by which a effected party could challenge the qualification of the project as “public purpose”. The Bill also defines special provisions for land taken in the case of urgency and both the Principle Act and the Amended Bill continue to remain silent on the definitions and provisions of urgency.
Both the Principle Act and Amended Bill under Clause 5(i) pertaining to “Easement” state that the “person interested in an easement affecting the land, shall be considered a person interested”. The term ‘easement’ is not defined either in the Act not in the Bill so proposed. It’s defined in the “India Easement Act 1882” and “The Limitation Act 1963” but the definitions are significantly different in these two acts, which would impact the implementation and resultant rights post displacement rights and benefits including compensation.
The Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill (2007) also has its subjective clauses over ruling the “conjunctional” proportion under which it is to be read. For uninitiated, the Bills subjective purpose is to provide benefits and compensation to people displaced or other involuntary displacement. Reading the “finer” prints of the bill it’s imperially clear that at best it shall always remain subjective.
Though the purpose of the R&R Bill is ‘to provide for rehabilitation and resettlement’ of affected persons, the bill itself does not warrant that they should be settled. While the Statement of Objects and Reasons mentions minimizing displacement, protecting the livelihoods and improving living standards, the language of the bill does not make these clauses mandatory. For example, Land for Land “shall only be allotted” if “Government land is available” or for Employment “shall be given preference in providing employment” subject to “availability and suitability”. The Bill in proportion equally bars the jurisdiction of civil courts providing judiciary powers to Central Authorities, Ombudsman, and Administrative Tribunals who never have these qualifications or have demonsratable sensitivities on matter of these interests historically and hence subjugate the “right to appeal” in case of natural disputes.
Cherry on the cake “the Bill does not specify a clear time frame for rehabilitation” and hence has never seen the sun from a draft bill to a constitutional act. With globalized initiatives and no longer proscribed immunity to the economy, this sure will is anybody’s guess.
No surprises in less than a decade we have had issues surmounting agitations across the length and breadth of the country. The political shenanigan adding up the dose of uber development and economic prosperity has resulted in an efficacy, forming a doctrine for ushering development.
A doctrine which has been implemented with impunity from Narmada to Singur to Nandigram to Panvel to Singrauli to Niyamgri to Angul to Polavram to Tadadi to Jaitapur. The Democratic fabric of the country affords an advantage for these oppressed voices to be heard and hitherto they have seen binding in unison either in the form of social revolutions, agitations or collective associations for benefits of the causes and relative masses. However, if these vociferous voices continue to sustain momentum and rattle to compete with the deafness of the socio-political system forever, the precarious balance seems to be giving away. More actionable governance norms are needed than a mere symbolic constitutional act with all its jurisprudence interpretations and clauses would not owe itself of “factual” wrongs by “perpetual” rights.
From “humara adhikar le ke rahenge” (we shall have our right) to the extremes of “Jaan debo, Jameen debo na” (shall give our lives but not our land) we have really come progressively far to collect global accolades, never mention the wrath of our own people for the sake of development.
These voices have far met the wide eyes of development and decisions which were to be sustained by eco-centricity have all been taken on account of homogeneity. The losses of which to be borne by masses who have anything but hope and capital profits for select few who have anything but sensitivity
Other factor for these voices is to be continually dubbed in socio-imitative parlance from communal to communist to social brouhaha of civic and vested organizations, counter playing in finding polarity of issues. This can be diffused so long is this gets lampooned, crossed and sheltered as a convoluted anti-development ideology.
But, we have decided. We are a nation on the move and move we shall, by moving all who come to stand between charades of senseless development versus the constitutional right of humanity.
Having defined the opposite we are yet to define the concept of progressive development or perhaps we have. The doctrine of progressive implementation now rests on principle of eminency with a simpler choice…..
Jaan debo ya Jameen debo..?? (Your life or your land..??)
