[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
dam-l Indian govenment gives assent to the new Land Acquisition Bill
FOR YOUR INFORMATION
Indian govenment gives assent to the new Land Acquisition Bill
The Central Cabinet of the Government of India has recently cleared the
draft of a major pice of legislation which seeks to amend the already
draconian Land Acquisition Act. Drafted by the colonial rulers in 1894, it
was adopted with minor changes by the first government of independent
India. The Act has since been the single most powerful legal tool used by
the state to acquire land in the name of public purpose. The new draft
permits it to now expand its acquisitive ambit on behalf of industry.
Effectively, the Bill, if passed by Parliament and the President would
permit the state to acquire land for private capital in the name of public
purpose.
Coming as this does on the heels of several legislative changes that
facilitate the privatisation of land, a major demonstration has been
planned by the National Alliance of People's Movements outside the Ministry
of Rural Areas and Employment (the new incarnation) of the Ministry of
Rural Development) on December 1, 1998. Please send your words of
solidarity. We will be in touch about other actions that you may take. A
more detailed note prepared for a national consultation follows. If you
need any further information or additinal material critiquing the state's
power of eminent domain, please write to me.
Smitu
-------------------------
SOME COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED LAND ACQUISITION (AMENDMENT) BILL, 1998.
Smitu Kothari
As you are aware, the Cabinet has given clearance to the above Bill, which
is a major redrafting of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This decision
fortells grave consequences for the country particularly its most
vulnerable and assetless people. Given that the Act has been one of the
central tools used for the mass displacement of people from their sources
of subsistence and culture, and given that the Act has been criticised by a
wide cross-section of democratically committed people, it is imperative
that a significant national mobilisation is necessary to understand and
oppose the Bill and prevent its introduction in Parliament in the next
session which begins in two weeks.
This crucial workshop is the second step (the first was a national workshop
held last month in Delhi) of a process that should initiate this national
mobilisation. Many groups and movements, including those associated with
alliances like the National Front for Tribal Self-Rule, the Jan Vikas
Andolan and the National Alliance of People's Movements have often called
for the repeal of the Act arguing that it justifies the state to acquire
land without comprehensive democratic process and with little sensitivity
to the lives, livelihoods and cultural identities of those that it
displaces. It is therefore particularly urgent that we stridently oppose
the amendments and call for a yearlong national dialogue on the form and
content of policies that deprives and displaces hundreds of thousands of
people every year.
The original LAA was drafted expressly for colonial interests--to give
legal sanction to acquire any land that the state felt was needed for
"public purposes". Minor amendments were made at the central and state
levels before Independence with a major amendment made in 1984. The 1984
amendment made land acquisition for the private sector easier. It also made
acquisition easier by introducing an urgency clause whereby lands could be
acquired without hearing objections to the planned acquisition.
The new amendments would legitimate the following major changes:
1. THE COLLECTOR HAS BEEN GIVEN MAJOR NEW POWERS: Any project or agency can
seek acquisition through the Collector merely by seeking his/her consent.
2. THERE IS A DILUTION OF DUE PROCESS: There is no mention of due process
where consultation with potentially affected communities and other
concerned citizens are mandatory. This is a serious regression particularly
after decades of precedents and struggles on the right to information,
participation and due democratic process.
3. IT MAKES INTERVENTION MORE DFFICULT: A period of one month was earlier
given to file objections. This has now been reduced to 21 days. Earlier,
announcements had to be made in two newspapers and even pasted in the
Panchayat office. Now it has to be made only in one local newspaper and
"pasted in some important places". If there is an objection in this brief
period, the Collector must call for a pubic hearing after which the
collector can go ahead with the notification and acquisition.
4. IT PUTS THE POTENTIALLY DISPLACED PERSONS AT ADDITIONAL DISADVANTEGES.
Appeals can only be heard by the High Court that is still beyond the reach
of most displaced persons.
5. THERE IS NO COMMITMENT TO SEEK LEAST DISPLACING OR NO DISPLACING
ALTERNATIVES: No official agency or the Collector is mandated to define
ways in which dispossession and displacement can be minimised.
6. IT IS NOT COMPULSORY TO GIVE COMPENSATION PRIOR TO POSSESION: This
amendment is particularly pernicious since it does not even grant
comprehensive compensation prior to displacement. The amendment would not
only impoverish and destabilise people but it would potentially reduce them
to beggars and put them at the mercy and dependence of officials.
7. THE DISPLACED HAVE TO SEEK COMPENATION: Rather than a comprehensive due
process to identify all those eligible for compensation and settling all
claims, the amendments shifts responsibility to the affected person who,
WITHIN THREE WEEKS has to file a claim and justify why he/she should be
compensated.
8. THERE IS NO RECOGNITION OF THOSE WHO DO NOT HAVE LEGAL TITLES TO LAND:
Often a majority in a village (particularly in trial areas) have no legal
titles or do not have titles but are dependent on the land (landless
workers, artisans, nomads, etc.).
9. THERE ARE GROSS INTERNAL CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN THE PROPOSED NATIONAL
POLICY FOR REHABILITATION AND THE AMENDED LAA: The new draft of the LAA
makes almost no acknowledgement that the Ministry has also been in the
process of drafting a national policy on Rehabilitation which, despite its
flaws and limitations has protections which are contradictory to what is
provided in the proposed LAA. In fact, leave alone the justification of
dispossession and displacement and the dilution or non-existence of due
process, even rehabilitation is not compulsory. The displaced person has to
demand this right and even then it is up to the Collector to accept this
right and then to locate land for rehabilitation. It is of particularly
serious concern that while the Cabinet cleared the LA Bill, it rejected the
Policy. A regressive draft legislation is sought to be given legal status
and a progressive draft policy which will not be legally binding is rejected!
It is obvious and imperative therefore that the draft as it stands today
must be withdrawn and a nationwide debate be initiated on the legality,
justiciability and necessity for a land acquisition legislation. In fact,
the practice of multiple legislations dealing with relatively similar
concerns is also an issue that needs further debate and intervention. It is
clear that land should only be acquired for minimum purposes which should
be defined on the basis of due process which itself should be decided by a
public debate. Based on the nine points above, it is essential that:
1. A major national debate, with this workshop as one of the first steps,
is initiated on the need for a land acquisition legislation, who it
benefits and what alternatives would be more democratic and just. This
debate would also define the ambit of what constitutes "public purpose".
2. Clearly, the state should not use discriminatory and exploitative
legislation to benefit a small section of the population, for instance the
corporate sector. In any case, public and private industries have the
capital to purchase land in the open market at current market prices and
should not be benefited at the expense of the livelihoods and lives of
millions of people and the ecological sanity of the country. Therefore the
present amendments should be withdrawn and these issues should be the basis
for the national dialogue that we are beginning today.
3. There must also be adequate provision to debate the nature of investment
that necessitates acquisition. No displacement should be legitimated
without a comprehensive due process in which project authorities must
demonstrate that the project concerned is the best option after considering
alternatives. Efforts must particularly be made to define a developmental
path that would minimise acquisition and where necessary, follow a
comprehensively defined due process to rehabilitate those affected without
discrimination and delay.
Finally, this Bill comes at a time when across the country, efforts are
being made to dilute or withdraw various Ceiling laws, dilute Land Reform
legislations and hand over forest lands to industry in contravention to the
Forest Conservation Act. In short, the thrust towards a more intensive
privatisation of land is firmly on track. It is imperative that we all
commit ourselves to opposing these serious trends and startegising to build
a more united struggle to democratise the rights to land as well as to the
sustainable use of it.
November 11, 1998