My submissions to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Land Acquisition Bill (LARR) 23rd June, New Delhi

Submissions to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on LARR, 23^rd June, New Delhi

 

 

On Quantum of Land & Food Security:

 

1. As submitted earlier, we demand a white paper on over all utilization of land since Independence resting with both Central and State Government, PSU’s, State Undertakings Public Private Organization (under PPP) and Government funded autonomous bodies which have been allotted but have not been utilized for allotted objectives, together with the facts and ownership pattern to assess; if any land has been diverted for different purposes other than allotted, the present ownership pattern and status of updated land records across states to afford the sum total of the over land available prior any further land acquisition.
2. We also demand clarity on how much of wasteland is available. The mention of “survey” to be done is misleading since the Rural Development Ministry under the department of land resources until few years back has identified roughly around 43.8 Lakh Mn Hectare Wasteland through both on the ground and satellite surveys. The report can be seen from “Ministry of Rural Development, Department of Land Resources web site.
3. The government needs to come clean on its intentions on “purported lip service to the survey” and clarify the points.
4. We also demand that in interest of Food Security, the government clarifies under the Act that no Multi crop land shall be acquired. The government’s contention is misleading when it says that “minimum” land shall be acquired. Who defines Minimum, Who justifies Minimum, What shall constitute Minimum is not clear in the bill and hence needs to be clarified.
5. In case of Industrial Corridor, 1 km of land is proposed to be acquired either side. This is subjective and the LARR Act 2015 provides not safeguards that Multi Crop land shall not be acquired. This is not acceptable.
6. A “Draft National Land Reforms Policy” was tabled in July 2013. We demand that the Land Policy, amongst looking at the factors of providing land to the landless also details a framework, together with the white paper on Land Utilization Aspects – bringing up a comprehensive Land Policy.
7. It must state the plans for next 15 years on how much of land corpus is to be made available for Housing, Infra Projects, Social and Civic Development, Agriculture etc detail plans for protecting the Agro Climatic and Ecology Sensitive Zones, which have  been plundered in name of development.

 

On Definition of Categories:

 

1. The LARR Act 2015 has created five special categories which exempt consent as mandated under the LARR Act 2013 of 80% of land owners for Private projects and 70% for PPP Projects.
2. These categories are Defence, Rural Infrastructure, Affordable Housing, Industrial Corridor and Infrastructure projects including for PPP projects where government owns the land
3. All these categories in present form provide significant subjectivity to the definition and loopholes to allow private players to acquire land and even the LARR Act 2015 is silent on what role the government shall play
4. The term “where government owns the land” equally is misleading in the LARR Act 2015. Example is Delhi Mumbai Industrial Corridor which is process of acquiring land plans to create several zone wise organizations which shall acquire land, but shall be given out to private players in name of smart cities and infrastructure development, This is not acceptable.
5. We seek clarification on what are the definitions of these categories and demand that the LARR Act clearly states this definition including defining what projects and how many Industrial Corridors are planned at the earnest.
6. We also seek clarifications on definition of what shall constitute Rural & Urban Areas with respect to government notifications to the states to settle the issues around compensation and rehabilitation and resettlement policies
7. The government has also inserted “entity” changing the definition of private companies and it is again misleading on clarifications on what shall constitute the entities. We demand a clarity of this term as well in LARR Act 2015

 

On Consent:

 

1.      As per LARR Act 2013 consent was mandated from of 80% of land owners for Private projects and 70% for PPP Projects.

2.      We demand that this gets maintained. The provisio of “consent of Gram Sabha’s” is needed to define what development is needed suiting the local requirements sans any negative impact on the environment and ecology and imperative that participatory involvement in name of development, is not diluted.

3.      There seems to be an attempt to dilute the provisions under PESA (For Scheduled Areas V & VI) and Forest Dwellers Act and LARR Act 2015. We feel if not checked could be a precursor to take away the consent clause in name of Infrastructure projects from Gram Sabha’s which is not acceptable. The government needs to clarify that provisions of the LARR Act 2015 for Forests, Wildlife and Ecological Sensitive Areas shall not be under the preview of Land Act 2015, which is silent on these issues and we demand an insertion to safeguard any attempt to dilute the Forest Dwellers Right in this regard

 

On Social Impact Assessment :

 

1.      The governments attempt to “exempt” 5 subjective categories from SIA is not acceptable. Government’s contention that this slows down the speed of the project has not been proven either in parliamentary discussions, inter ministerial reports or have been brought in the public domain through any independent reports. The government’s contention is in fact hollow when recent RTI by the Finance Ministry has proven to the contrary where only 8% of the Projects were stalled for want of Land Acquisitions. The government is misleading the nation and this assertion if anything is to protect its own interest to dole out benefits to the corporate for speeding their acquisition for creation of realty land banks.

2.      The government brow beats for imbibing best practices of other nations, should know that all leading and developed nations deploy both EIA and SIA to assess the situations “prior” the “purchase” (not acquisition) of land for development.

3.      Even World Bank – for which the government is seen rationalising multiple laws and policies for “ease of doing business” in India, equally has a mandatory norm to conduct the SIA and EIA for its own funded projects, though the effects of even World Bank projects have resulted in more displacements world over as presented by an International Independent Report

4.      As per NSSO 70th report and State of Agriculture report 2013, it has been proven that the rural ecology sustains upwards of 48% of the people, directly or indirectly to both Farm and Non Farm activities. The SIA is needed since the “compensation” be awarded only to the owner with no impact study it shall never determine the (PAP) Project Affected People, specially the marginalised community which depend on land resources for their livelihood.

5.      We demand SIA needs to be maintained across all of these categories since it’s the core of R&R policies, creating an equality both in terms of protecting livelihood and also ensuring the marginalised are not pushed away to societal periphery.

 

On Compensation:

 

1.      We demand to define the formulae for compensation. The govt is saying that there shall be 4 times compensation to be provided to the farmers in case of compensation, which is misleading. The FM in his budget presentation while proposing the “Benami Transaction Bill” mentioned the severity of Black money in real estate transactions and also his acknowledgement of deemed revenue accrued to the government is less than the notified price of land transactions and evasion of stamp duty payments are rampant hiding the actual market value.

2.      The compensation so to be paid for by the collector (who under the LARR Act 2015) is the notifying authority shall calculate the average price of 3 years to arrive the notified value or circle rate prevalent if notified to award compensation. This shall leave the actual compensation closer to the circle rate or rate of registration as an average value instead of the market value, depriving the farmers of the actual price, which the government claims.

3.      We demand the formulae to inserted in the LARR Act clearly defining the “Compensation Formulae”

4.      The other aspect is “Land Use”. Once notified of the land use, the market forces tend to determine the value of land and the farmers can perhaps get more value then than notified land value, which is not declared at the time of acquisition. There are no provisions to claim the higher price on land use.

5.      We demand that the “Land Use” is suitably build up in the formulae for award of compensation and the compensation formulae for both Rural and Urban Areas is clearly notified.

6.      The mandatory employment for 1 person in the PAP category is also misleading. A farmer having given up his land would have no deep skills to afford the project unless he stands trained to run the activity. Hence even that one job having forgone his “asset” despite the compensation would be left to fend for him for want of any useful skill.

7.      We demand that “land for land” should be made available within the same region to ensure continuity of societal and cultural aspects

8.      If not, we demand wasteland is made available and sufficient grant pool – non financial rural and agri support with interest free loans are provided to develop the land

9.      We also demand the “farmer whose land is being acquired” is considered as a “vested party” in the acquisition process and is issued debentures or identified as a share holder to whom a dividend on year on year basis on determined value of land is being paid on Annual basis or from any profits which gets accrued from the project post implementation and commencement of operations.

10.  We though strongly recommend, that for effective balance, the land should never be acquired but to be taken on lease and lease value to be paid to the beneficiaries including the PAP on regular basis at annualized value to safeguard livelihood and sustainability

 

On R&R:

 

1. We demand a comprehensive white paper on the R&R settlement, award of compensation, Details on Project Affected People and their suitable settlement including compensation awarded, employment status of the PAP and any compensation in kind which has been awarded thus far since independence.
2. It is know that R&R record owing to project displacement is pathetic and there are still PAP which are struggling to be reinstated, resettled or to be rehabilitated including cases of award of compensation by respective governments, as long as 42 years
3. The SIA as stated earlier becomes the most important aspect to ascertain the impact for PAP and the subsequent R&R including award of compensation in this light.
4. A report “Displacement and Rehabilitation of People due to Development Projects” prepared by IIT Roorkee was tabled in Parliament, for consideration of Lok Sabha Secretariat and Member of Parliament in  December 2013.
5. The report clearly brought the effect of displacement on marginalized communities including SC, ST’s and OBC which were left displaced due to Mining, Dam, Industrial Projects and Acquisition of Land for Public Purpose
6. There has been no discussion thus far either in the parliament or between the parliamentary committees on the impact of such displacement and the policies thus so formulated carry no proof of concept to ensure the devastating aspects of this independent study and its results have been considered while proposing or implementing the LARR Act 2015.
7. Unless there’s a comprehensive and detailed guideline including wider discussions in the public domain and historical and legacy issues are settled, including for award of compensation we demand the provisions of this act is kept in abeyance for any land acquisition.
8. The LARR Act 2015 also has changed the classification of earlier purchases including denotifying by an amendment the land which has been acquired since 5 years and compensation not paid to be considered as acquired and not giving back the land in case of any development for period of 5 years.
9. There are 2 demands, we say, that all land acquisition which has happened prior to the notification of land and for which compensation has not been paid, the compensation formulae as to be defined in LARR Act 2015 should be under its preview on not basis the old Act,
10. Secondly, it is unacceptable that the government acquires land to protect a higher compensation on a future date and is tempted to create a land bank in name of compensation having being paid in a “registered account” but not paid to the beneficiaries including PAP. This is not acceptable.
11. If there is no use for the land over the 5 year period, the land should be turned back to the farmers from whom it was acquired with compound interest paid on deposit from date of acquisition notified on prevailing circle rate.

 

On Powers with Collector and Land Dispute Redressal Authority:

 

1. The draconian aspects of Land Act 1894 have been resurrected with the Collector becoming the “Mai Baap” again. These provisions for notification, acquisition, compensation, R&R policies and challenging the decision powers have been done away with the amendments to LARR Act 2013 in the present LARR Act 2015.
2. The powers to prosecute has also been subject to sanctions by the Gov which is against the principles of natural justice, access to judicial intervention and subjugation of fundamental rights as conformed in the constitution
3. The LDRA, though has been shifted to the districts, the pathetic state of both civil and criminal cases and the state of pending cases running in hundred lakhs in district courts is widely known, and having a authority only to deal with such situations will accentuate the situation and hamper the process of justice.
4. As been seen recently the sanctions for Macro corrupt acts by the previous government was not forthcoming and it was only when leaders of high political stature decided to challenge that a landmark judgement “Subramanian Swamy Vs Manmohan Singh” was delivered by Hon’ble SC by interventions of the court where permissions for sanctions were considered as deemed to be granted if not provided for in 6 months from the time of such an application.
5. The plight of a vested wrong in case of access to justice for small farmer or from marginalized community should be seen in the aspect of whether the situations be conducive for him to file, plead and contest the cases with LDRA and whether he/she will have the wherewithal both financially and morally to contest against the collector within the same district as “affected” under the patronage, of the government..?
6. The other aspect is for the “Collector” to have the sole powers to refer the matter to the LDRA once the application has been filed and for want of any response, the affected farmer can approach to the LDRA for seeking directions to the collector to make the reference..?
7. This is not acceptable. How can it be perceived that a small farmer shall persist to complaint about the collector, to the collector himself and equally shall prevail on the collector to both refer the matter to LDRA and also to award a judgement for the acquisition in his favour once assuming the LDRA has a favourable opinion to consider the case..?
8. We demand, this provision is to be done away with, and clarity in terms of processes to be followed including identifying Ex Officio’s members, such as Member of Parliament, Member of Legislative Assembly and Councils including members of Gram Sabha is part of the panel to adjudicate in the matters under LDRA.
9. We also demand that the “affected person” definition is clarified under the LARR Act 2015, to include not only the owner but “all concerned” drawing livelihood from the land to be acquired
10. We also demand that the provisions as of owner of the land to be extended and are as applicable to Project Affected People (PAP) who demand redressal of their complaints.
11. We also demand setting up of “local common judicial fund pool” for providing legal aid and access to assistance for farmers at district level.