It is not Land Acquisition, it is Land Acquisition for Development (LA4D)

It is not Land Acquisition, it is Land Acquisition for Development (LA4D)
What’s in a name? A lot it would seem. We have been discussing the ‘Land Acquisition Act’ widely. But there is a lesser known official title of the bill which reads as – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill. The title is self-evident in that it points to three main tenets of this Act besides land acquisition itself – Fair Compensation, Rehabilitation and Resettlement. These three tenets are of utmost importance as they touch the lives of people on the ground in all cases of land acquisition. What has the present government done with these tenets? The government has kept all three intact and only enhanced them through the amendments.
For an ordinary citizen, the Amendment Bill would be like a dream come true. We have long been complaining about the rigidity and snail’s pace involved in the past government’s bureaucratese. The people’s grievances over decades have now been heard and the government is removing itself from places where procedures need not be choked by its presence and is retaining its role only in the form of facilitation. In the case of land acquisition, the choke at the Social Impact Assessment level is being removed for special projects and facilitation in compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement of the people is being focussed on with greater care.
Another point that detractors fail to understand is that when the government wants to acquire land for affordable housing and industrial corridors, the ultimate beneficiaries are the inhabitants of that very area itself – whether in the form of a house, easy transport, better connectivity, new economic opportunities, new employment or re-developed real estate. If the same detractors had listened to the people more carefully, they would also have heard the demand for development infrastructure made on the government and woken up to it. We seek to fulfil these demands but first we have to reduce possible delays that are holding up progress.
Any person who has ever dealt with a land issue whether with the government, in courts or otherwise knows that inordinate delays persist. Where the government has promised to build a bridge or a school and has acquired land for it, there is the obvious expectation that the village will have access to such a bridge or school at the earliest and that is the price that they pay for by way of their land. However, because of systemic delays, these projects do not take off for years, people remain unsatisfied and develop a deep distrust towards the government. It is this trust deficit that prevents people from acquiescing readily to land acquisition proposals now – a trust deficit due to the inefficiency of the government (read past government).
This government is led by an able leader and wants to erase this black record and deliver services to the people with integrity. The people can trust that this government is not shackled by scams and corruption, and is, therefore, more likely to perform. These are not simply words – a live example can be seen in Gujarat’s model of land acquisition. It has been touted as the country’s best model by none less than the erstwhile Planning Commission and the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (Commerce & Industry Ministry) in early May 2014.
On the question of consent, the government already retains the right to acquire land if it is deemed
necessary. This clause has been reasonably extended to projects with private involvement as a large number of government projects are now falling within this ambit. Again, this brings us back to avoiding the hurdle of inordinate delay in projects, whether government or collaborative.
Having said that, land is acquired with commensurate compensation, and rehabilitation over and above,
unlike any private acquisitions. In private negotiations for sale of land, if your negotiating powers are not
strong, in all likelihood you will undersell and there is no guarantee that you would get the best price for
the land. However, the government guarantees that you will get four times the market price in rural
areas and two times the price in urban areas. Can any other entity in the market guarantee or give this
assurance to a landholder, and also promise rehabilitation?
There is also the question of land being resold by private parties. While this may be the case, the Act
puts in a protection that if such a resale were to happen, 40% of the proceeds will go back to the original
landowners. Not only does the landowner get compensation, rehabilitation, resettlement, s/he can also
get additional monetary benefits if it so turns out that the land has to be resold. This is an assurance
that the persons affected are being compensated every step along the way and which has been left
untouched in the new Amendment Bill.
Moreover, land is a state subject. If the state government of the opposition parties could show a better
path, we probably would not have seen Gujarat headlining as a model for land acquisition last year – it is
a telling sign that no such successful model has been brandished by these parties so far. Since the
passing of the Act in 2013, very few State governments have actually taken the efforts to notify the rules
for ground implementation. It is a tad hypocritical to protest on an Amendment Bill when they have
been so lackadaisical in implementing the Act purported to be perfect!
Recently, it was reported that there is a 40% increase in farmer suicides in Maharashtra. Drought and
unexpected heavy rains have ruined farmers and pushed them to the brink. The latest Agriculture
Census of India (2010-11) reported that more than 80% of the farmers have an average land holding size
of less than one acre. Combined with weather and market risks, a majority of these small and marginal
farmers are left in a perpetual state of distress. Government projects that can generate employment,
provide compensation and rehabilitation through employment opportunities (the Amendment Bill
assures one job per family), the situation of these small and marginal farmers will be ameliorated and
we can remove them from this dire situation.
If the opponents of the changes can open up their minds a little further, large scale irrigation projects,
cooperative and industrial farming can also be initiated through land acquisitions, giving a new lease of
life to the agricultural activities of small and marginal farmers. Skill India is another excellent avenue for
rehabilitation packages envisaged under the LARR Act. If we can factor in skill development programmes
in rehabilitation, we will be imparting life long skills and not only jobs. This will take away the criticism of
jobs being of temporary nature as well and will fulfill the adage of teaching a man to fish for a lifetime,
rather than simply handing him fish for a day.
We have miles to go before we acquire and even more before we instill true development and progress.
As a growing country, we should be focussing on how to shorten this road and collectively contribute
rather than stalling it by spreading falsehood and misperception.  As Swami Vivekananda said, “Make
way for the life-current of the nation. Take away the blocks that bar the way to the progress of this
mighty river, cleanse its path, clear the channel, and out it will rush by its own natural impulse, and the
nation will go on careering and progressing.”