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/finally-a-consensus-on-land-acquisition-bill-after-six-years-20547.html"/> LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Finally, a consensus on land acquisition bill after six years | Im4change.org
Resource centre on India's rural distress
 
 

Finally, a consensus on land acquisition bill after six years
-The Times of India

Land Acquisition

A significant part of the Manmohan Singh government's political agenda for the 2014 election looks set to sail through Parliament with an all-party meeting on Thursday putting its seal of approval on a contentious bill on land acquisition that enhances compensation for farmers.

The government countered criticism that the bill's provisions make land acquisition more time consuming while pushing up costs, but all major political parties seemed to have shelved their reservations in view of the "pro-farmer" orientation given to the proposed law.

Parliamentary minister Kamal Nath made no bones of the government's intent, telling the meeting that opposing the bill will amount to being "anti-farmer" and said the bill will be brought to Parliament for passage soon after both Houses reconvene on Monday.

Along with the land acquisition bill, the government has accorded top priority to the national Food Security Bill according to an advance list of government business sent to party leaders on Thursday. The agenda will be finalized when the business advisory committees of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha meet on Monday.

The land acquisition and food security bills are two key pillars of the government's social sector agenda, along with cash transfer of subsidies - the triad on which Congress hopes will help woo the electorate as UPA seeks a third term in office.

BJP, regional outfits like JD(U) and BJD as well as UPA's key outside supporter Samajwadi Party, agreed to support the land bill, putting the Centre in a position to clinch the issue after six years of failure that saw the legislation go through four versions and vetting by a parliamentary standing committee twice.

Rural development minister Jairam Ramesh said while the bill will buffer farmers against arbitrary or ill defined government powers to acquire land, he added that changes had been made to give industry a better deal.

He told TOI: "I have compromised on many counts. Compared to the previous bill tabled in Parliament that gave six times compensation for land, this one provides for four times compensation in rural areas and twice in urban areas and would ensure that some land gets acquired. Also, more companies would buy land directly from landowners and that is good."

Industry, however, remained less enthusiastic and business organizations said the hiking compensation four-fold and procedures dealing with land holders' consent and existing environment clearances will push up costs and delay projects.

Ramesh justified sops for industry saying the earlier proposal was drafted at a time when the economy was galloping at 8% growth rate. Since then, an economic slowdown has reduced the elbow room to squeeze more revenue out of business.

At the all party meeting Centre agreed to tweak some provisions but the assurance to consider leader of opposition Sushma Swaraj's proposals that land be "leased" instead of a change of ownership was seen intended more to assuage the Opposition rather make any major changes to the bill.

"We have reached a broad consensus on land acquisition Bill," Swaraj and Kamal Nath said after the 90-minute meeting. The BJP's reasoning is pretty much similar to Congress as the opposition wants to be seen on the right side of the farmer constituency.

The switch possibly indicates that fewer parties can risk opposing the bill at the cost of being seen to obstruct a new deal for farmers -- a warning made explicitly by Nath when he opened the meeting.

The bill's pro-farmer claim stems from definition of "public purpose" that specifies the projects for which land can be acquired, a major change from the 1897 legislation vesting in governments blanket powers to take over land. Also, it states that an overwhelming number of landowners have to agree to give their land.

At the discussions, the government agreed to include elected representatives (MPs/MLAs) and NGOs in the panel for "social impact assessment". At present, the process is to be clinched by government in consultation with gram sabhas.

Fears of land hoarding will also be addressed. Political leaders led by Swaraj complained that individuals had bought large tracts of land since the bill was introduced in parliament on September 5, 2011, hoping to make a killing through acquisition under the new law that would enhance the compensation.

The Centre is likely to insert a provision that if government acquires land that changed hands after September 5, the compensation would be divided equally between the current landowner and the one prior to cutoff date. In an olive branch to the Left, the Centre is agreeable to pay compensation to tenants and not just landowners if the states so desire.