The Land Acquisition Debate in India 2015

Photo of Himalayan foot hills by Ashok Malhotra

 

Currently in India, a heated debate is taking place on the subject of Land acquisition by government. This debate takes place with a history and background in which ever since colonial times, land has been acquired in India by government, not always in fair and just manner i.e. inadequate compensations were paid for the acquisition or land was acquired not so much for public good as for private benefit without paying a just compensation to the land owner. Therefore, there are strong emotional under currents to the debate, some of which were reflected in an earlier note in this blog here.

At the heart of the debate are two opposing needs,

First is the right of a private owner to hold on to his land and use it in any legally permissible manner and have the assurance that it shall not be taken away from him without his consent by any private or public entity.

second is the opposing need of governments to acquire land speedily and efficiently for essential public purposes that a government is obliged to discharge such as the building of a road, railway lines, irrigation canal a government office, a Defence establishment, government schools etc. Added to this is also the need to develop a country and provide infrastructure for that development in greater public good as opposed to the good of an individual.

How are these two opposing needs to be balanced? Needless to say great care and sensitivity is required in framing laws to balance the two needs. While an older law of 1894, especially its later interpretations and use, lacked immensely in this sensitivity, a new law of 2013 perhaps goes to the other extreme of making land acquisition extremely cumbersome even for essential public needs. It has also left many gaping holes. Recent land acquisition ordnance of 2015 by the Narendra Modi led government has eliminated some of the shortcomings but may have added a few new ones.

A new law has yet to be framed and a debate is currently underway on the topic. A few humble suggestions are included by this author as a contribution to this debate:

Governments may take care not to acquire on behalf of private parties, businesses or organizations and leave them alone to acquire privately by negotiation in the open market. The government can make it easy for private enterprise later through quick land use conversions or in order to facilitate business even through advance automatic notification of conversions in notified areas. No doubt this would lead to an increase of land rates but it is only just that a private land owner benefit from it. Industrial zones can thus easily be established with private owners benefiting from it while business persons benefit automatic land use conversion plus some government infrastructure such as heavy traffic road, electricity and water line etc. A few reluctant farmers that do not sell in this zone shall add charm and a green lung to the industrial zone that would have a far better environment than the current hugely dreary and bleak industrial areas of India..

The question also remains as to how governments may go about when large land acquisitions are required as for example the establishment of a new city, a dam, even a new capital city or a cantonment (e.g. this or this). A possible route to that can be as follows.

1. A government notification may be issued of intention with a precise land map e.g. the intention to establish a new city in a certain area or corridor along with the rate at which it would acquire that land if needed over the next several years without consent as plans develop for essential needs such as offices, roads etc. along with the rate of acquisition as of a certain date. Future acquisitions would be at that rate adjusted for inflation through an inflation index same as used for property by the income tax department for assessment of capital gains.
2. It may be mentioned that private land owners may continue to use, buy or sell their property in the notified zone as before with the caution that land may be acquired in the notified zone as stated in item 1 at any time in the future.

Once again, there will be farmers in this notified city zone who shall not sell whatever the compensation and their land not be acquirable except for essential public needs that do not require consent such as a road or school. In that case such green areas shall add charm and green lungs to the new city, very much a concept of post modern future cities. The effect of the notification here would be to hold property rates at perhaps more or less at the announced values if and when the land is acquired by government at any time in future or alternatively permit a private land owner to benefit from increased land rates in future that he should have right to from his own land..

Before issuing any such notification government may take maximum possible care that natural forests or prime agricultural areas are not unduly disrupted and that governments adhere strictly to essential needs in acquisition rather than acquire in excess and leave land unused as has in fact unfortunately happened in the past while farmers and their families have been pushed out of their ancestral land that their families held for centuries into urban slums and desolation.

It goes without saying that utmost sensitivity is required in framing such laws. Those not sensitive to the situation may easily develop this sensitivity if they consider their own feelings on the issue, if what belongs intimately to them such as their children or their own home and ancestral land is taken away from them without their consent by any public or private entity and their aged parents and infant children pushed out of it into the wide world to fend for themselves with nothing more than tear drenched eyes. a broken heart and a wad of paper notes in their reluctant shaking hands.