LAND AQUISITION BILL

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.

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. 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.

 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.The land acquisition in Jammu and Kashmir is governed by the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, 1934.

The Government of India believed there was a heightened public concern on land acquisition issues in India. Of particular concern was that despite many amendments, over the years, to India’s Land Acquisition Act of 1894, there was an absence of a cohesive national law that addressed fair compensation when private land is acquired for public use, and fair rehabilitation of land owners and those directly affected from loss of livelihoods.

Land Acquisition Bill creates five special categories for usage of land : 

1. Defence

2. Rural infrastructure

3. Affordable housing

4. Industrial corridors

5. Infrastructure projects including Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects where the central government owns the land

Major Amendments Made to Land Acquisition Bill, 2013 :

1. The earlier act provided for consent of 70% of land owners whose land is acquired for PPP projects and 80% for Private projects respectively , Now not required .

2.The Bill states that in calculating this time period, any period during which the proceedings of acquisition were held up: (i) due to a stay order of a court, or (ii) a period specified in the award of a Tribunal for taking possession, or (iii) any period where possession has been taken but the compensation is lying deposited in a court or any account, will not be counted.

3. In case land remains unutilized after acquisition, the new Bill empowers states to return the land either to the owner or to the State Land Bank.

4. According to the new amendments,Compulsory employment will be provided to one member of a farming family that is selling its land

5. While the LARR Act, 2013 was applicable for the acquisition of land for private companies, the Bill changes this to acquisition for ‘private entities’.

6. After the acquired land is sold to a third party for a higher price, 40% of the appreciated land value (or profit) will be shared with the original owners.

7. Limiting the industrial corridor to 1 km on both sides of highways and railway lines. This is limited to industrial corridors being set up by the government only.

8.  The LARR Act, 2013 required land acquired under it which remained unutilised for five years, to be returned to the original owners or the land bank.  The Bill states that the period after which unutilised land will need to be returned will be: 

(i) five years, or 

(ii) any period specified at the time of setting up the project, whichever is later.

9. While the LARR Act, 2013 was applicable for the acquisition of land for private companies, the Bill changes this to acquisition for ‘private entities’.

Pros and Cons of the bill with reference to recent debates.

1.      Application of the act :

Pros: The Land Acquisition, Resettlement and Rehabilitation Act, ensured the displaced a compensation up to four times the market value of land in rural areas and two times in urban areas. The act made it mandatory to obtain prior consent of owners of the land – 70% for Private Public Participation (PPP) projects and 80% for private projects, which could be raised to 100% by respective State Governments.

Cons: The first problem here is with the fact that this act will apply only when a private project developer acquires or purchases land more than 100 acres in rural areas or 50 acres in urban areas through a private negotiation with the landowner, or when a private project developer asks the government to acquire land on his/her/their behalf. So if a private project developer wants to escape this clause, he/she will take land in multiple parcels instead of one-time acquisition, which helps him or her escape the application of this Act.

2.      Requirement of Consent:

Pros: This is an improvement upon the original act, since if the majority of the landowners do not agree to the project to be established on their land, a majority of them can unite and oppose the project by not giving their consent. Hence, a major demand of the protesters has been met to a certain extent. The other big achievement is that the definition of “public purpose” is much more clear and is related to development unlike in the past, where the government could acquire land on any pretext while terming it “public purpose”.

3.      Adequate Notice period for acquisition of land:

Pros : Under the Land Acquisition Act (1894), an “Urgency Clause” could be used to acquire land overnight without any basis. However, a proper procedure is designed under this bill for both the procedure of acquisition of land and of awarding compensation and rehabilitation and resettlement award by an authority as designated by the government under the bill.

4.      Compensation for those affected by land acquisition:

Pros: Again, there is an improvement upon the original act which did not provide any kind of compensation (monetary/non-monetary) to those affected by the land acquisition process. This bill makes a start, compensating those who will be affected by land acquisition prior to the setting up of the infrastructure or development project, monetarily and in some cases, non-monetarily. The bill also provides land-for-land compensation in certain cases. Also, the clause of lease means that the landowner at least need not lose land ownership, although others may lose their livelihoods in the process and have to be adequately compensated and rehabilitated.

Cons : The bill has been criticized mainly for two accounts ,First, there is a huge debate on account of whether such compensation amount would be enough or not. Activists argue that prior to the coming up of a development project, the market price is quite low particularly in rural areas or semi-urban areas, and so the compensation amount (up to 4 times the market price) may be too little for a landowner/farmer who is losing his/her livelihood in a big way.  Second, those who would be affected after the establishment of the project, they have not been considered at all in the bill although one could say that this was not the primary purpose of the bill, and second, one could address these through proper implementation and enforcement of the environment regulations for air and water (if not for land). There are issues with those norms though, but for once, this is a secondary problem with the bill itself.

5.Rehabilitation  and resettlement:

Pros:  Under the Land Acquisition Act (1894), again no provision was there for rehabilitating or resettlement of those who would be losing their ownership of land or livelihoods associated with the land acquired for any project. But under this bill, a number of provisions have been made for rehabilitation and resettlement of all those affected by land acquisition in any manner (loss of ownership and/or loss of livelihoods.

Cons: First of all, there is no making of these provisions as mandatory, and the project developer can say that he/she is not in a position to do so with reasons, the project developer is not mandated really to provide these provisions. Second, there is no clear idea of the timeline under which these facilities are to be provided. For example, amendments were moved by various MPs that these facilities should be made ready at least six months prior to actual land acquisition so that those who will be displaced or affected can be sure if the amenities provided for them are adequate or not, and if not satisfied or if having genuine grievances, can ask for a redressal of these prior to actual land acquisition. None of those were accepted and added in the bill.

6.      Social Impact Assessment

Pros: A major point in this bill is that on the lines of Environmental Impact Assessment done prior to obtaining Environment Clearances from MoEF, this bill require that a Social Impact Assessment be done by an Expert Group appointed by the respective State government. The Expert Group can ask for land acquisition not to be done provided it is satisfied that the project is not in public interest, the costs outweigh the benefits or it does not serve the stated public purpose. The Expert Group has to assess the impact of the project on various things such as grazing land, transport, housing, lives of people, their occupations, their ownership, their economic conditions, physical infrastructure (drainage, roads, water availability, sanitation etc.) and many other things.

LARR-Act 2013	Land Ordinance 2014
Mandatory 70% consent for PPP projects. Mandatory 80% consent for private projects. Mandatory Social impact assessment (SIA) for every projects.	Those “mandatory” things are no longer required for 5 types of projects: National security and Defense Production Rural infrastructure, Rural electrification Infrastructure and Social infrastructure Industrial corridors Housing for Poors.
SIA mandatory for every type of project.	SIA not needed for Those five categories listed above PPP projects, IF Government owns the land.
—	Building private hospitals and private educational institutes will also count as “public purpose”. Means, they too can acquire land if 80% affected families agreed.
Compensation: 4 times the market rate in rural area. 2 times in urban area.	Remains the same.
Stringent provisions for relief and rehabilitation (R&R).	remains the same
Private “companies” can acquire land for public purpose.	Private “entities” can acquire. Meaning private companies, NGOs, trusts, foundations, charity bodies, proprietors etc. too can acquire land for “public purpose”.
If any mischief played on Government’s part then head of the department will be responsible.	Head of the department can’t be prosecuted without prior sanction of government (under CrPC Section 197). This “immunity” is given to ensure bureaucrats don’t sit on the files, fearing media-trials and judicial activism.