There has been widespread resistance for the proposed amendments to the Land Acquisition Act but Sammith Shivananda argues that the changes signal a paradigm shift in Indian policy making to facilitate investment and cut red tape, while at the same time retaining safeguards for farmers.
In the Indian general elections of May 2014, the National Democratic Alliance led by the Bharatiya Janata Party was elected to power with a thumping mandate in the backdrop of its promises of development across all sectors which would propel India to the elite group of developed nations of the world. Ever since then, the Prime Minister Mr. Narendra Modi has been vocal about reforms with his core focus on the ambitious Make in India campaign, which aims to bring in investment, and transform India into an industrial nation.
Central to the idea of investments lies the complex regime of regulations and bureaucracy, especially in areas such as land acquisition and departmental clearances, which has frequently deterred investors into the resource rich nation. The Modi government understands this, and has proposed a host of reforms, which include amendments to the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARR Act), enacted by the last government. Whilst the proposed amendments aim to smoothen the process of land acquisition and the obstacles facing it, the opposition parties and social activists are vociferously protesting against the Bill as being anti-farmer and pro-corporates. From a legal perspective, however, the opposition to the Bill seems unfounded and merely, a ploy to earn political mileage. This is because the Bill firmly showcases the resolve of the present Government to move away from archaic and populist practices towards a more pragmatic and sustainable industrial regime by removing the labyrinth of red tape and litigation which have historically projected India as a hostile destination to investors.
To understand the importance of the amendments to the LARR Act, one has to first understand the need for easing regulations and accelerating the process of land acquisition. In 2011 Derek Scissors, a senior researcher at the Heritage Foundation, argued India’s financial liberalisation of 1991 and subsequently in 2002 was not substantiated with adept reforms across all sectors, particularly infrastructure and investment which, according to him, forms the centrepiece of any economic policy. Scissors attributed the lack of reforms to the government’s lackadaisical attitude towards land policy with special emphasis on land acquisition owing to weak property rights. He further continues that this is linked to the idea that stronger government action would alleviate India’s problems, whilst in fact the contrary was true and more economic freedom and less governmental interference are the real drivers of reform. Scissors’ argument is not unfounded as can be seen from the fact that with the flummoxing state of land ownership in India, the increasing number of litigations against foreign and domestic companies have only led to putting investors on a back foot, thereby reducing the much needed investment for boosting growth.
Powerful activists have painted the picture of the Bill as a land grabbing tool for the corporates. However, on closer analysis, some of the provisions termed controversial by the opposition seem to lack merit:
1. Removal of ‘consent’ clause and Social Impact Assessment in acquisition of land for certain purposes
The Bill introduces five new classes of land use, namely, defence, rural infrastructure, affordable housing, industrial corridors and infrastructure including public-private partnerships, but excluding private schools and hospitals. It seeks to remove the consent of seventy percent of the land owners that was required prior to acquisition under the original 2013 Act in the aforesaid sectors, whilst also eliminating the need for Social Impact Assessment whilst acquiring the land. The argument against the removal of these clauses is that it propagates land grabbing by industrialists and also neglects the impact of the particular project on its social environment. However, in India, the ownership of land being a problematic issue with no clarity on owners and tenants, the issue of consent dangerously transforms into a powerful weapon for those holding vested interests, and powerful lobbies rather than those with genuine interest in the land. A seventy percent consensus is therefore virtually impossible, and does not help the case for corporates trying to establish projects within a specific timeframe. Secondly, Social Impact Assessment is not to be understood as a mere formality, as it involves a plethora of procedures and clearances from various departments of both Central and State Governments. Removal of Social Impact Assessment for necessary projects such as rural infrastructure, affordable housing and the like would help speed up the process of implementation than being stuck in years, and sometimes decades of bureaucratic imbroglio.
2. Removal of limit on acquisition of multi-cropped irrigated land
The Bill seeks to remove the limits on the area of multi-cropped irrigated land that can be acquired for newly proposed land use sectors, whilst at the same time adding that the government must ensure that the extent of land acquired should be the bare minimum that is necessary for the project. Whilst the critics of the Bill argue this to be threatening the food security of the nation, the pragmatic view is that since the lands which are agriculturally productive command high prices and the clearances to be obtained for change in land use are extensive, industrialists would be inclined to steer towards the less fertile lands which could be acquired with lesser costs and simpler clearances.
3. Increase in the period for return of unutilised land
Another bone of contention between the Government and opposition is the fact that the Bill seeks to remove the cap of five years in returning the land to the original landowners if it has not been used for specified purpose it was acquired for and substitute it with the words “such period as may be specified at the time of setting up the project”. There have been arguments that this could lead to land hoarding by corporates and subsequent sale at inflated rates. The problem with this argument is that it fails to see the complete picture. The provision does not merely end at removing the cap for return, but in addition seeks to exclude the time period where the acquisition proceedings are held up due to litigation. This would be, in reality, a welcome move for investors.
4. Prosecution of government officials only with prior Governmental sanction
Under the LARR Act, if an offence is committed by the government in the land acquisition process, the head of the department is invariably be deemed guilty. The Bill seeks to substitute the provision with the condition of prior governmental sanction before prosecuting that particular official. The opposition believes this provision will undermine the accountability of public officials, but the fact remains that public offices will not be crippled with bundles of pending files as the officials would be able to function freely without the fear of being held liable for acts not committed by them. This also, in effect, would greatly assist in reducing the bureaucratic red tape.
While the above provisions are controversial, there are additional provisions that the Government seeks to introduce which are seen as pro-farmer. Amongst these include the provision to allow private entities which may be a proprietorship, partnership, companies, corporations, non-profit organisations as opposed to merely private companies which could acquire lands. This is seen as positive step to increase the involvement of smaller entities to come forward and assist in important sectors such as rural infrastructure, healthcare and education. The most important of these provisions, however, is the inclusion of ‘compulsory employment to at least one member of the affected family of a farm labourer’ during the rehabilitation and resettlement award. This ensures that not only the owner of the land, but also the tenant or labourer working on that land is adequately rehabilitated and their means to livelihood is not adversely affected.
It is said that actions speak louder than words, and the first full Union Budget presented by the NDA government last month seeks to lay down a roadmap for greatly increasing investment, by significantly easing the regulations and red tape for companies, both domestic and foreign. The budget, inter alia, pushes for a massive increase in infrastructure investment by increasing outlays to the sector by a mammoth Rs.20,000 crores (approximately £2bn), and it is at the heart of this budget target that land acquisition and red tape removal finds a prominent place. The Bill has now been passed in the Lok Sabha and is awaiting the nod of the Rajya Sabha. The debate against it seems ill-informed and motivated by those with vested interests rather than seeing it with pragmatic foresight and as a move that would work wonders to achieve Modi’s ‘Acche Din’ (good days) rhetoric.
Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of the India at LSE blog, nor of the London School of Economics. Please read our comments policy before posting.
About the Author
Sammith Shivananda is a student at the London School of Economics presently pursuing his LL.M in International Business Law. He has worked under High Court Judges and various governmental and non-governmental bodies on policy issues with special focus on real estate and land acquisition matters.
Hi Sammith,
Thanks for the wonderful write-up, Highly Appreciate your efforts to clear the various doubts regarding the bill. I shall be consolidating a few more & seek your opinion. Below is a Personal Question ( a bit lengthy, hope you will bear with me), which covers my concerns & if answered, will help many others like me to a greater extent.
(The figures if any are not accurate (but do resemble the present scenario ) & are to give you a better understanding of the situation)
I come from a rural area in Haryana, presently employed outside me state. Coming from a farming background, I have always been inclined towards agriculture/agro business, & wished how I could work on my own farm, but the 1894 LA law was a big concern & always stopped me from taking that big leap. Thanks to the LARR act 2013, the agripreneur inside me got a fresh life. So Jan last year, I started setting up my little farm on site ‘B’.
We own 2 parcels of land registered in the name of different members of my family.
1) Site A ~ 4 acres (not so fertile, Govt Circle rate – 3 lakhs/acre ( revised 2014),
present market value~ 7 lacs.
2) Site B ~ 10 acres ( Highly fertile & very good u/ground water level, Govt circle rate~ 9 lacs/acre (rev.2014), market value~ 17-23 lacs/acre)
By Market value I mean if you go buying the land this is what you got to pay, else no one sells it to you. Most of the latest registered sale deed’s in this / neighboring areas are from the yr’2009. There have been hardly any deals within the last 3 years, and there too, the actual price paid was under reported say paid 14 lac, registered 8 lacs / acre.
{{ (a) Now as per sec.26,27,28 & schedules I & II, in such a case the M.Value deciding authority shall be collector. Now with ” NO CONSENT CLAUSE “, The concerned Public authority can decide any rate suitable to them or the govt circle rate (all those experts mentioned will have no personal stake in the land, so it won’t be difficult to manipulate/ influence their opinion by various means?
(b) Even after the 2015 proposed changes, the exempted sector terms are still vague like * rural infrastructure including electrification * affordable housing- ??? and Housing for the Poor *infrastructure projects including the Public Private Projects-???
(c) A private company can bribe a few politicians/Public officials & procure an acre on its own, rest the govt can do for it, later merge the two.
(d) Again the Public officer can’t be dragged to the courts of law for corruption, without prior govt consent ( even that IPC 197, 1973 doesn’t change this much). So what if the Govt itself is into Corruption, with past record of prev govt’s we can’t trut the politicians.
(e) The LARR authority is again controlled by the same govt, which we approach in case of any dispute.
(f) The haryana govt vide circ. in 2014 already reduced the compensation to 2 times ( irrespective of distance from urban centres) the value decided by LA officer.
(g) Wouldn’t it have been a good idea to include the Consent of at least the VILLAGE PANCHAYAT at least for the affordable housing & Infrastructure part, bcz this is the only organisation properly aware of the situation on the ground & well connected~answerable to the farmers, unlike state govt & central govt.
(h) They say they gonna give employment to one member of affected family, what is the guarantee that he wouldn’t be removed by that company for some reason later on, why didn’t they make it central govt job?? }}
there are plenty more things which I shall post in another comment later on, but let me get back to my concern.
So my site ‘A’ is likely to be acquired by govt for NHAI project.Since it is clear that it will be used for constructing Roads~Highways (i.e the welfare of entire society) & is not so fertile, I am Ok with the idea of parting with it, even if i get a little less than the market value as compensation.
My major concern is about fear of losing site ‘B’ which is well clear of any proposed/existing project so far. My Parents look after this farm & I had earlier decided to quit my job & join them full time –
1) 2 Poly house’s (green house) – 35 lacs
2) Small dairy of 5 buffaloes (not registered)- 5 lacs ( @ 1lac per animal) + 7 lacs for the machinery & other related construction. Wish to expand it.
3) 2 acres for tree plantation~ expected returns only after 5 yr period by felling trees- 40 lacs.
4) nicely Built House – 15 lacs.
5) Bio gas plant- 3 lacs
6) Regular multi-crops~2 acres completely organic.
7) Other structures ~ 5 lacs
8) fencing ~ 2 lacs
9) Farm machinery inclduing Bore well ~ 10 lacs
10) a few other agro-dependent activities (eg. apiculture) which give me good side by earnings.
11) land actual market value- 2 cr.
12) Permanent 4 Hired workers.
I know emotions & efforts etc got no role to play when it comes to LAW. Now how will a collector decide the loss of my earnings from various sources above, the total expenditure incurred for setting up this farm in a fair transparent manner. If they ask for documents I can only prove the exact cost for green houses as I got my loan documents for it & may be receipts of some of the other things. Now cattle can be sold but what about proving the true cost of shed ~labor~ all the machinery etc.Won’t elaborate further, hope you understood.
To cut this long story short-
The only hope I see in this bill is the change of term Private company to Private entity- whereby even an individual can register as a one man company. Though this too can be misused, but is there any scope for me to SAFEGUARD MY FARM FROM ANY FUTURE GOVT ACQUISITION . Now a manufacturing company once set up by Govt. approval is generally not re-acquired, I mean it remains safe. Can I register as a company & buy my own farm as it is, by paying off the govt some taxes or whatever . I don’t know under which category the govt is going to consider such a farm as a company.
Please Advice the best possible solution or should I consult some Law/CA firm ?
( I have not even taken off properly & the fear of Crash now haunts me )
I am sorry, but I sense the terrible understanding of the law. The legal jargon should be left to the lawyers, and plain reading would only result in shortsighted understanding of the provisions.
a) and f) Firstly as regards the land rates,the new Bill provides for compensation at double the market price in urban areas and four times the price in rural areas. Let me now make use of the analysis of famous economist Swaminathan Aiyar who says this threatens to convert a problem of undervaluation into gross overvaluation. He says , “Already, every politician and rural grantee is into land speculation in a big way, getting insider knowledge of future projects and then buying up all the land in the proposed development area. So, land prices often shoot up well before acquisition. Paying four times this already inflated price will be crazy.” Hence, even the government circle rates would go up proportionally, and this would be in fact beneficial for farmers.
b) Rural infrastructure and all terms have been adequately defined in the Schedule to the Act, and are not vague anymore.
c) For a PPP, the acquisition should be from day one. A PPP model is based on the premise that Government calls for auction and thereafter proceeds. Hence, there is no scope for collusion, or private company acquiring some land first and then merging.
d) and e) Previously, under the 2013 Act, a head of the department could be dragged to courts for even no fault of him. Having worked closely with land authorities, I can tell you with conviction that most of the corrupt activities are done by people at lower rungs. With the creation of the new district authority for issue redressals, the decision of such officers can be questioned, and on the basis of which, application can be made to the appropriate government for prosecution consent, which in my experience, would be given most of the times.
g) Once again, being involved at the ground level, I have seen it with my own eyes that panchayats and sarpanchs are most gullible to corruption. Secondly, the powerful farmer lobbies and opposition parties also exist within the panchayat which would be a big roadblock for the acquisition process. Hence, the No-Consent clause as I argue in my article is a very welcome move.
h) Sitting in the comfort of your house, you can say please give everyone government jobs. The resources required for provision of jobs is not a joke. Salary according to pay commission scales plus benefits plus the growing menace of inefficiency would all be added problems. Leaving it to the corporates would ensure the government and tax payer money is liability free, and that if the company retrenches employees, the labour courts are always at their disposal.
Finally, on the issue of you safeguarding your farm, I would suggest you to consult a lawyer with expertise in land laws and not seek advice from web forums because the complexities on the ground, and the documents can be understood better by a lawyer in person. But to give you some assurance, under Sections 29 and 30 of the Act, the Collector will have to engage the services of experts such as engineers, agriculturists, and such other specialists as may be required to determine the solatium amount, which again would be 100% equivalent to the compensation amount, which means you get compensation for the land PLUS compensation for things attached to your land, such as any building or assets.
Hi Sammith,
Thanks for replying. In my previous comment, I was more interested in seeking a solution to a personal issue, hence I had just touched upon a few flaws in the bill, without discussing them in detail. If I have to summarize this bill, I would say :
“The Crux of this entire LARR-2013 amended by LAB-2014 & LAB-2015 is that the outcome (good/bad) lies on its implementation (fair/poor) & intentions of the Govt. The farmers shall be totally dependent on Govt & Govt approved organisations, should there be something wrong in the system. In short their fate lies in the hands of a king & those approved by the king.”
Interestingly, an act such as this (which seems to be pro-corporates) once made , might remain unaffected for a much longer period, while the political parties in power today, might change more frequently.
After a very long time we got LARR – 2013. Almost every political party (including opposition) had given consent, in spite of the fact, that the then existing govt. was a result of a fractured mandate. In fact, BJP top leadership then had stressed upon the inclusion of Consent Clause & some more points. Perhaps that act was clearly in favor of farmers & none of the parties wanted to offend them, then. Now I won’t dig into the dirty tricks of Political game, but introducing an amendment such as this one, immediately after winning the elections, & forming a govt with full majority, does make a common man wonder that something is fishy.
coming to your explanations-
QUOTE ” a) & f) Firstly as regards the land rates,the new Bill provides for compensation at double the market price in urban areas & four times the price in rural areas. Let me now …analysis of famous economist Swaminathan Aiyar….” UNQUOTE
THIS THING WAS THERE IN THE ACT OF 2013, NOTHING NEW. I DIDN’T AGREE WITH THIS PART EVEN THEN, BECAUSE THE CRITERIA DETERMINING MARKET VALUE LIKE –
*SCHEDULE I GIVES THE FACTOR WITH WHICH THE GOVT ASSESSED MARKET VALUE SHOULD BE MULTIPLIED. THIS VALUE IS ” 1 ” IN URBAN AREAS & ” 1 TO 2 ” IN RURAL AREAS DEPENDING UPON THE DISTANCE OF PROJECT FROM THE URBAN AREA. SINCE NO LIMITS OR DISTANCE IN KMS IS SPECIFIED, IT LEAVES A LOOP HOLE & CAN BE MISUSED BY THE CENTRAL / STATE GOVTS. THE SOLATIUM AMOUNT SHALL BE 100% OF THE MARKET x MULTIPLYING FACTOR. THEREFORE IT WILL NOT BE JUST 2 TIMES OR 4 TIMES.
A RECENT EXAMPLE IS HARYANA WHERE THE GOVT CHOSE THE FACTOR 1 IRRESPECTIVE OF URBAN OR RURAL AREA LOCATION OF ANY PROJECT. THE OUTCOME IS THE COMPENSATION WOULD BE 2 TIMES OF ASSESSED VALUE, ANYWHERE IN THE STATE.
LINK TO CIRCULAR – http://revenueharyana.gov.in/html/revenuedepartment/Haryana_Right_To_FairCompensation_Rules_2014.pdf
*THE LAND VALUE IS MOST OF THE TIMES UNDER- REPORTED IN THE SALE DEEDS.
*I AGREE TO SOME EXTENT WITH THE ANALYSIS OF RENOWNED ECONOMIST S.AIYAR, BUT EVEN WITH MY LITTLE KNOWLEDGE CAN QUOTE MANY EXAMPLES, WHERE LA IS IN PROCESS OR NOTIFICATION IS OUT, STILL THE GOVT CIRCLE RATE’S HAVE EITHER NOT BEEN REVISED OR HAVE SEEN MARGINAL APPRECIATION, IN CONTRAST TO THE GROUND REALITY.
*THE LA OFFICER (LIKELY A COLLECTOR) IS THE AUTHORITY TO DECIDE THE MARKET VALUE AFTER TAKING THE OPINION OF VARIOUS EXPERTS, WHAT IS THE PROBABILITY OF SUCH AN
OFFICER BEING HONEST / NOT CORRUPT OR NOT BEING INFLUENCED BY GOVT/PVT PARTIES.
## HOWEVER IN THE 2013 ACT, THE CONSENT CLAUSE PROVIDED, ACTED AS A TOOL TO PUT A CHECK ON THE ABOVE. ##
QUOTE ” b) Rural infrastructure and all terms have been adequately defined in the Schedule to the Act, and are not vague anymore. ” UNQUOTE
SCHEDULE I & II INCLUDING SCHEDULE III, DEAL WITH COMPENSATION & REHABILITATION GUIDELINES. SCHEDULE IV MENTIONS THOSE 13 ACTS WHICH WERE EXEMPTED FROM THE PURVIEW OF THE LARR-2013.
NOW THE EXISTING BJP LED GOVT, BRAGS HOW THEY HAVE INCLUDED THESE PREVIOUSLY EXEMPTED 13 LAWS IN THEIR BILL, BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT AS PER LARR-2013 ALL THESE 13 LAWS WERE SUPPOSED TO BE BROUGHT UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THE ACT THROUGH AN ORDINANCE WITHIN 1 YEAR, OF ITS ENACTMENT.
THE FIVE EXEMPTED SECTORS WERE / ARE :
(i) Defence, (ii) rural infrastructure,including Electrification (iii) affordable housing, Housing for the poor,
(iv) industrial corridors, and (v) infrastructure & social infrastructure projects including PPP.
PERHAPS YOU COMMITED A TYPO WHEN YOU MENTIONED RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE, MAY BE WHAT YOU MEANT WAS (i) defence, (iv) industrial corridors, and (v) infrastructure and social infrastructure.
NOBODY GOT PROBLEMS WITH SECTOR (i), 2015 PROPOSED CHANGES CLARIFY (iv) & IN (V) THE TERM SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE HAS BEEN REMOVED. TERMS IN (ii) , (iii) & (v) STILL NOT CLARIFIED.
IF IN FACT, YOU TRULY MEANT RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE OBVIOUSLY HINTING AT SCHEDULE III. THEN SIRE, I SUGGEST YOU, PLS GO THROUGH THE OPENING PARA OF SCHEDULE III AGAIN.
QUOTE “c) For a PPP, the acquisition should be from day one. A PPP model is based on the premise that Government calls for auction and thereafter proceeds. Hence, there is no scope for collusion, or private company acquiring some land first and then merging.” UNQUOTE
SIMPLE THING IS THAT WE HAVE SEEN IN MANY CASES IN THE PAST, THAT HOW AUCTION NOTIFICATIONS ARE RELEASED A FEW HOURS PRIOR TO AUCTION, ALSO HOW AUCTIONS CAN BE STAGED. NOW IT TAKES A LONG TIME BEFORE ANY SUCH SCAM IS OUT IN OPEN & EVEN MORE LONG TIME TO GET THE JUSTICE.
QUOTE “d) and e) Previously, under the 2013 Act, a head of the department could be dragged to courts for even no fault of him… corrupt activities are done by people at lower rungs…Creation of the new district authority for issue redressals…….most of the times.” UNQUOTE
ATLEAST THE FEW HEADS OF THE DEPT. COULD PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE IN COURT, IF THEY WERE NOT GUILTY. WHERE DO THE FARMERS GO IF THEY ARE DUPED? THE NEW DISTRCIT LARR AUTHORITY FOR GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL DOES NO GOOD IF THE INFLUENTIAL POLITICIANS ARE CORRUPT THEMSELVES. IN THIS CASE DUE TO POLITICAL REASONS IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO GET GOVT. PERMISSION FOR TRYING OUT CORRUPT OFFICERS. WE HAVE SEEN CORPORATE HONCHOS ARM TWISTING TOP GOVT LEADERS IN THE PAST.
QUOTE ” g) Once again…. that panchayats and sarpanchs are most gullible to corruption. secondly, …. opposition parties also exist within the panchayat which would be a big roadblock for the acquisition process. Hence, the No-Consent clause….” UNQOUTE
I COME FROM A VILLAGE & WELL AWARE OF PANCHAYAT’S & LOCAL POLITICS TOO. SO I WOULD SAY YOU ARE PARTIALLY CORRECT HERE. THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN IS, IF UNJUST
COMPENSATION/REHAB PACKAGE IS OFFERED TO THE FARMERS, THE PANCHAYAT CAN PROTECT THE FARMERS INTEREST BY REJECTING THE DEAL, FOR THE ELECTED HEADS WOULD FEAR THE RETALIATION FROM THEIR FELLOW VILLAGE FARMERS, ALSO THE PANCHAYAT IS IN BETTER POSITION TO ASSIST THE GOVT IN DECIDING WHICH ALL LAND PARCELS ARE BETTER FOR ACQUISITION & REHABILITATION. WHERE IS THE DEMOCRACY IS THE PANCHAYAT IS COMPLETELY EXCLUDED ? WHO WILL RAISE THE FARMERS ISSUES IF THE FIGHT IS BETWEEN THE GOVT & FARMERS? ANOTHER GOVT BODY LIKE LARR DISTRICT AUTHORITY & YOU BELIEVE JUSTICE WILL BE MET?
QUOTE ” h) Sitting ..comfort of your house, you can say please give everyone government jobs. The resources required for provision of jobs is not a joke…. if the company retrenches employees, the labor courts are always at their disposal.” UNQUOTE
GOVT IS NOT DOING THE FARMERS A FAVOR, I HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND THIS ? NOBODY IS ASKING JOBS FOR EVERYONE, HOWEVER IN MANY FAMILIES AN AGRICULTURAL PLOT DOES FEED THE ENTIRE FAMILY. SO IF A FARMER NOURISHES A LAND WITH HIS SWEAT & BLOOD, & IS CONCERNED ABOUT LOSING IT FOREVER. THAT SOUNDS LIKE A JOKE TO YOU ? AS AN OWNER OF THE LAND HE LIVES WITH HONOR, IRRESPECTIVE OF HIS FINANCIAL STATUS.
WHAT JOB DO YOU THINK WILL THE PVT COMPANIES OFFER A FARMER CONSIDERING HIS FARMING SKILLS? A WATCHMEN/ SECURITY GUARD/ EVEN FOR ANY WORKER IN ANY FIRM CERTAIN SKILLS ARE REQUIRED? & WITH LIMITED FINANCES & HIS SITUATION THEN YOU EXPECT HIM TO STRUGGLE IN LABOUR COURTS, SHOULD THE PVT FIRM FIRE HIM WITHIN THE PROBATIONARY PERIOD?
QUOTE “under Sections 29 and 30 of the Act,…services of experts such as engineers… specialists… determine the solatium ……” UNQUOTE
THESE SO CALLED EXPERTS DO AS GOOD AS THE COLLECTOR ITSELF IN CASE OF PRESSURE FROM THE POLITICAL POWERS.
WITH THIS, I REST MY CASE HERE.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
PS – I would have raised a few more points here & possible improvements in this bill but for your polite yet “terrible” understanding of me.
However, I disagree that I have just had a plain reading. Secondly, there is not much in this bill which requires me to be a law professional, not very difficult to a person who understands the
importance of every if,but,instead, after,amend,insert,following etc & has an ear to the ground. Why leave the legal jargons to the lawyers alone? they won’t bear the brunt of any ill effects? So any person who will be affected, should be made to understand this Bill. After all, this is not going to be a small act, and will have ever lasting impact on this Nation, especially the farming community. Once land is gone its gone forever !!
I wouldn’t say that you are an ignoramus like me, for I know your expertise in the field of law & what studying @lse means, but i will say that your opinion on this matter, appears to be biased & inclined in favor of Business houses. There is an old article by M.Ghatak & P.Ghosh, which I found has covered this issue in a far apt. manner. I don’t know what their present views are, but I did like what they mentioned here – http://www.ideasforindia.in/article.aspx?article_id=3.
Hope this blog site does entertain a fair criticism, even from an ignorant fool like me.
Thanks.
This blog post does a very good job of presenting the government’s amendments, but is very poor when it comes to seriously engaging with the arguments of those who oppose the bill. Using phrases liked ‘vested interests’ and ‘ill-informed’ whilst claiming to present the complex picture is cheap rhetoric and not befitting of even academic-lite analysis.
The blog lacks even the slightest historical context. The 2013 LARR bill was introduced after years of suffering under the previous Land Acquisition regime (which was introduced during colonial rule). I presume the author knows and choose not to mention this.
What does ‘vested interests’ mean? That people have an interest and say on what happens to their land? Why is this bad? Why is private property sacrosanct for investors but dismissible for poor farmers?
But maybe most worrying about this blog post is that it takes an amazingly narrow legalistic point of view and either chooses to ignore or is unaware of how land acquisition takes place in India. It is often violent and lines the pockets of local politicians. The ‘red tape’ the author is so scared off is often the only mechanism people have to resist their land being taken.
But the thing I really don’t understand is why investors can’t just pay for land? If they want it, and they can make money off it, then buy it at a good price. If people don’t want to sell, then tough, but we should not expect the state to evict people of the land due to some perverted view of development (or ‘good times’).