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/land-violence-law-not-at-fault-by-manoj-pant-8063.html"/> LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Land Violence: Law not at fault by Manoj Pant | Im4change.org
Resource centre on India's rural distress
 
 

Land Violence: Law not at fault by Manoj Pant
Singur , Greater Noida , Posco, Jaitapur and so on. The issue of land acquisition seems to now have acquired dimensions which political parties are finding it difficult to deal with. As each state faces political problems, it has tried to pass on the buck to the Centre arguing that they are merely doing what the central Land Acquisition Act 1894 (the Act) allows them to do.

The implication is that as land is acquired for special economic zones, roads, highways and buildings, etc., states are merely doing what the Act permits. While not going into the merits and demerits at the moment of whether land acquisition is right or wrong, I will, in this article, try to show that most of these acquisitions are actually a violation of the Act. Surprisingly, the courts also do not seem to be able to settle the issue. While the old Act might well require to be redrafted, this is certainly not the obvious consequence of the recent acts of land acquisition nor the only solution.

The most crucial part of the Act is the definition of "public purpose" as given in clause 3 (f). Contrary to the popular view, public purpose is quite clearly defined as "... provision of village sites", planned development using public funds "ina¦ pursuance ofa¦ policy of the government", "provision of land for residential purposes to the poor or landless", etc. The broad purpose is clearly the acquisition of land for any government-sponsored development scheme. Thus, clause 3 (f) (viii) clearly excludes the acquisition of land for companies.

Section 5 deals with the hearing of objections from people whose land is acquired and section 6 makes it mandatory that before acquisition, a government signatory must make a declaration that the land is being used for public purpose as defined above.

From the above, it seems that most of the acquisitions do not satisfy section 3 (f). For example, in Singur, land was obtained for Tata's Nano car project which clearly violates the condition that the land would not be acquired for a private company. In the case of Greater Noida, while it was perfectly justified to acquire land for the Yamuna Expressway, the subsequent sale of adjoining land for residential construction by private companies was again a clear violation of 3 (f).

The case of Posco actually does not fall under the purview of this Act as it relates to forest land which is typically owned by the state and where the provisions of the Forest Act should apply. Finally, take the case of the Jaitapur nuclear plant. While it was within the provisions of the Act to use the land for a power plant, it is a different issue whether residents have the right to object to living next to a nuclear installation.

Many commentators have argued that section 17 of the Act needs to be changed as it enables the state to take land at short notice, on grounds of "urgency", without any public objection. This is again a misreading of the Act. Section 17 (2) specifically mentions the cases where this kind of urgent acquisition is permissible. These are maintenance of railway traffic, irrigation, water supply, road communications and electricity. In no case is taking over land for private purposes permitted under section 17 (2).

Could the Act be used to acquire land for private companies? This is covered in Part VII, articles 38-44. However, 38 (A) clearly indicates that this is only permissible in case of land to be used for erection of houses for the workers of the company or provision of amenities. Under section 40, no government consent can be given for such acquisition unless the company is "engaging itself in any industry or work which is for a public purpose". Further, section 44 (a) specifies that the land given to the company cannot be transferred by "sale, gift, mortgage, lease...." without the sanction of the government.

Further clarification is seen in section 44 (b) which states that no land should be acquired for a company not engaged in public purpose if it is not a government company. Should creation of employment be considered public purpose? This is ridiculous as then we would have a communist regime where all activity is done on behalf of the state!

Should the Act be amended? It actually was in 1985. Then why the current clamour for a new Act? I think political parties are trying to deflect attention from yet another example of state corruption. One doesn't need to be a rocket scientist to see that all the government needs to do is to simply change land use in areas around public road projects and step back after that. The million-rupee question: who will then fund the elections?

The bottomline? If the issue is one of venality of governments then what we need to change is the mindset rather than the Act. The issue is of corruption not inadequate legislation.

(The author is faculty at JNU)