Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
Notice (8): Undefined variable: urlPrefix [APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8]latest-news-updates/extension-of-woes-by-lola-nayar-9118.html"/> LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Extension Of Woes by Lola Nayar | Im4change.org
Resource centre on India's rural distress
 
 

Extension Of Woes by Lola Nayar
The Noida-Greater Noida imbroglio will be instructive for the draft land acquisition bill

In The Works...

    * Government to acquire land, “public purpose” to be redefined
    * Land acquisition only after getting written consent of 80 per cent of landowners
    * Monitoring authority to be set up at the Centre and states to ensure compliance
    * Payment component split into part-cash-down and remaining in annuity for 33 years
    * Post development of land, a part to be returned to original owners for use as fit
    * Rights of dwellers without land to be recognised and compensated

***

A 20-ft-wide nallah (drain) divides the villages of Shahberi in Noida Extension and Dundahera in Ghaziabad. But these two places in the same state are light years apart when it comes to land acquisition. Ghaziabad allowed the developers to negotiate directly with farmers to acquire land for the 360-acre Crossings Republik township. The lucky farmers who held out have benefited from the rise in prices, from Rs 4 lakh per bigha in 2006 to over Rs 30 lakh per bigha.

In contrast, Shahberi residents had no such option. The Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) used its emergency powers to notify that land of 271 villages be taken over for industrial township development. The recent Supreme Court verdict—that land acquired under the emergency provision for industrial development cannot be diverted for residential purposes—came as a big relief for 90 per cent of the Shahberi villagers, who did not accept the state’s payment of Rs 7.11 lakh per bigha. Similar rulings in the nearby Patwari village have returned land to the farmers.

There’s more to come: so far a dozen villages in the Noida Extension area have gone to court and more are likely to follow suit—a development that has put a question mark on the fate of thousands who had booked flats in the upcoming projects. Given the spate of agitations, sometimes taking a violent form, this latest saga could well be taken as a microcosm of the land issues confronting several state governments, including Karnataka, Orissa and Maharashtra.

It has also added urgency to the UPA government’s efforts to evolve a consensus—both within the government and one that meets the requirement of states—on the land acquisition and rehabilitation and resettlement bills. The new Union minister for rural development, Jairam Ramesh, says he prefers that the government should undertake 100 per cent land acquisition and rehabilitation for public purpose projects, on the lines recommended by the Sonia Gandhi-chaired National Advisory Council (NAC).

At the heart of the new draft bill being worked out is a redefinition of “public purpose” so as to avoid questionable acquisition being thus justified, Noida Extension being the latest example. “State governments have unfortunately used their powers to change the definition of public purpose,” says Arun Maira, member, Planning Commission. This will now change, says NAC member N.C. Saxena, who is working with the ministry on the drafting of the bill. “For this, ‘public purpose’ is being clearly redefined,” he says.

As things stand, public purpose driving land acquisition will be put into three compartments. The first would cover government acquisition of land for roads, irrigation and so on, the classic public purpose. Then comes land acquired for public purposes that might later change ownership to private entities (like SEZs, for example). Finally, there’s the acquisition of land for a private project, industrial or residential. In the second and third categories, a consent of a majority of the landowners—80 per cent is the number doing the rounds—is essential.

Then comes the issue of compensation, which will be a major focus of the new bill. Haryana’s model of compensation—part cash payment, 33-year annuity payments and a slice of developed land or employment in industrial projects—is currently finding considerable support, including by Rahul Gandhi. But it too has flaws. “Though the Haryana model has some progressive features like annuity payments, it also has several weaknesses, like it does not protect the poor comprehensively as it is designed to facilitate rapid industrialisation,” says civil society activist and NAC member Harsh Mander.

When it comes to land acquisition by private entities, Haryana officials admit that other than setting a base price level for different areas, the government has no role. Thus the poor and vulnerable have no “mai-baap” to protect them. On the other hand, as recent developments in Noida and Greater Noida show, even governments can be exploitative, with landowners/farmers given no say despite provisions under law.

Similarly, the drafters of the bill are yet to get a fix on whether a compulsory rehabilitation policy should be enforced, or if it should be left to market forces. Hopefully, the new legislation taking shape will ensure a voice for the farm and forestland owners and adequate compensation for all displaced people.

In the wake of the SC strictures, Rama Raman, CEO, GNIDA, assures, “In future we will hear village-dwellers’ views and objections (provided under Section 5A) before proceeding with land acquisition.” But that is no consolation for those who lost fertile land and crops. As developments in UP reveal, despite a new compensation package being promised (but not implemented so far), farmers are not too sure they will get their dues from state authorities, who made a huge profit through auction of land.

Government officials in Noida justify this on the grounds that infrastructure development like roads, water supply, sewerage system and other facilities for an integrated industrial township is costly business. If the land acquisition is done as per a master plan as in the case of Noida and Greater Noida, then the infrastructure development is better, unlike in Gurgaon, which lacks planning and proper infrastructure. “Given the problem of getting clear land titles, land acquisition by the government is the best,” says Getamber Anand, MD, ATS Group, and vice-president, Confederation of Real Estate Developers’ Associations of India (CREDAI).

Despite the best of intentions, the devil lies in the implementation. Land, as we know well, is a state subject. It remains to be seen how the states react to the bill; they can be spoilers. That’s why the draft bill envisages a monitoring authority both at the central and state level. Even the drafters of the bill agree that these would be “enabling and not compelling” provisions in the final law. So, there’s nothing stopping West Bengal from sticking to its line that there will be no state government role in buying land for industry. Given that it’s such an emotive—and politically loaded issue—expect more fine-tuning ahead.