Break The Land-Lock

Let's be clear about one thing at the very onset: land needs to be unlocked for development. The country needs more and more industries, roads, electrification, railway lines, hospitals, schools, colleges, affordable housing and so forth to come up. Quickly. Of course, the land acquisition process should be a transparent, simple and fair affair. And, those dispossessed of land should get a fair deal and become participants in development. Is the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement (Amendment) Bill, 2015, the best way of going about it? Not really.

The Narendra Modi government does reiterate that development is the sole intent of the changes it is pushing. Good intentions don't translate into proper outcomes if fault lines exist in a law. A good law needs to be clear on all aspects — from definitions to processes, leaving no scope for ambiguities and loopholes. The December 2014 Ordinance and the 2015 law thereafter, passed by the Lok Sabha — which is apparently being promulgated into an Ordinance, have many provisions that need to be relooked, reconsidered and better defined.

There is no denying that LARR Act 2013 was seen by many — including former Congress-ruled states—as cumbersome, tedious. In an effort to unlock land, the NDA government seems to have gone to the other extreme, smacking of a tilt towards moneyed private players.

Between the lines: 

First, let's look at a topic that has been widely discussed and debated. Five categories have been exempted from the consent clauses of 80% of landowners for private projects and 70% for public-private partnership (PPP) projects; social impact assessment (SIA); and, limits on acquisition of irrigated multi-cropped land. These five being defence, rural infrastructure, affordable housing, industrial corridors and infrastructure.

The exemptions are justified for national security and defence projects because the purpose of the acquisition has to be kept confidential. However, there is no reason why SIA should be dropped for 'linear projects' such as electrification, roads, railway lines and so on. Without a proper SIA, how will there be proper identification of owners and implementation an effective relief and rehabilitation (R&R) scheme?

The headers such as 'rural infrastructure', 'affordable housing', 'industrial corridors' could mean almost anything. Loopholes galore. For instance, sports is included in the definition of 'infrastructure projects'. Now, whether it is a PPP or an independent venture, R&R would apply even if a private player, through private negotiations, acquires 100 acres or more in rural areas or 50 acres or more in urban areas. So, does this mean that a private player can go ahead for a golf course project and buy 95 acres of multi-cropped land, have no R&R with the consent provision be damned in an area termed as rural but close to a city? Would a cricket-coaching center also qualify? 

Let's next look at 'industrial corridors'. One would assume it to be similar to the Northwestern freight corridor that is expected to engine industrial growth and provide jobs. However, the term not clearly defined. The amendments say the government and its undertakings can acquire land for industrial corridors, apart from acquiring up to 1 km on both sides of the designated railway line or road of the corridor. Of course, the first question that arises is what will those 2 km be acquired and used for? Does this mean a state can declare 100 acres of land, some 200 km away, from the state capital, as industrial corridor? Then, would this mean that 1 km on either side of the road from the state capital be acquired automatically? There's nothing more a land mafia would want for the political-mafia alliance to blossom. Imagine, if the states decide to have many industrial corridors; most land around almost all highways and rail lines could be acquired!

There's more. While the 2013 law said an unutilised land would return in five years to the owner or a land bank, now the acquirer can hold on to it virtually for a very long time. This may be justifiable for specific purposes such as an expansion of a railway station or an airport but not for all projects. For instance, under 'affordable housing', a builder could buy 80 acres of land, start the project in 40 acres and keep the rest idle for a 30-year project. This means he buys land for a pittance and makes a killing over decades. Affordable will then be a misnomer. It's better to make it mandatory for projects to extend at the initial stage itself, and also list out exempted projects.

The argument often is that much of these could be included in the rules and regulations, once the legislation is passed. But, that could be dangerous. Remember, the draconian Section 66A was brought in clandestinely into the Information & Technology Act through the Internet Intermediary Rules.

Smoothening the edges: 

The 2015 law should ideally resonate the slogan 'sabke saath sabke vikas', but it doesn't, at the moment. The government did the right thing in removing 'social infrastructure', 'private hospitals' and 'private educational institutions' from the exempted list in the Ordinance. These did reek of an avenue being created for the political class and vested interests to grab land and park their moolah. The Centre needs to do more to remove the negative perception.

There are, as shown above, many places where loopholes need to be plugged. There is the issue of food security too. A blanket ban on multi-cropped land is not a feasible idea when going in for new cities such as the new Andhra capital. The new legislation though provides too much scope for multi-crop land to be acquired in an unbridled fashion. Losing too much irrigated land will certainly affect food security. A parliamentary panel headed by MM Joshi that looked into Special Economic Zones pointed out that the food production had dropped in areas where land was acquired for the SEZs.

It is very important that those dispossessed of land are truly given a fair deal. The dropping of SIA in almost every project is a very serious issue that undermines the entire process. There are very serious concerns of millions of farmers and those whose livelihoods are dependent on the land being acquired. In the current scenario, it would appear as if the farmer's land is grabbed, he is given some money and shunted out somewhere. He would have no say whatsoever. How long that money lasts with him and whether he is able to have a better livelihood is certainly debatable. Bureaucrats, who have seen the acquisition process from close quarters, point out that acquisition brings out disproportionate harm to the one whose land is acquired. On the other hand, the one owning the adjacent land gains heavily from the development that takes place in the acquired land. Isn't there a way for everyone gaining from the fruits of development?

Consider this. If the law now seeks to acquire one km on either side of the road/ rail line of the industrial corridor, why not make it 1.25 km on either side with the quarter km on either side being developed and given in proportion to the people whose land was acquired? There is already a provision in the original law that says that when land is acquired for urbanisation purposes, 20% of the developed land would be reserved and offered to landowning, project-affected families. This formula could be extended to most projects. There could be more solutions. But, the government needs to pause a bit, change gears and take a corrective course.