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: 150
 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: 151
 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]
LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Righting wrongs in land acquisition -Jairam Ramesh & Muhammad Khan

Righting wrongs in land acquisition -Jairam Ramesh & Muhammad Khan

Share this article Share this article
published Published on Mar 5, 2018   modified Modified on Mar 5, 2018
-The Hindu

A Supreme Court Bench will decide whether the law has to be interpreted expansively or in a narrow sense

In July 2011, the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government embarked on an ambitious project to rewrite the law on land acquisition. How the government acquired land from private parties had long been the subject of heated dispute, often resulting in violent conflict.

Several previous governments had made attempts to amend the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but none had met with much success and the Act continued as an instrument of state oppression and forced displacement.

It was a milestone achievement of the UPA government when the historic Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act was passed in September 2013 with the full support of all political parties, including the Bharatiya Janata Party. In fact, amendments suggested by the then Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Sushma Swaraj, were readily accepted and made part of the law. The opening speaker in the debate was Rajnath Singh who welcomed the new law. The law provided for greatly enhanced compensation, consent of those whose land was sought to be acquired, and detailed rehabilitation and resettlement provisions (including employment, land for land, and other beneficial schemes). In other words, it changed the relationship between the state and the individual by empowering the latter against the former.

Returning land

It also included a retrospective clause. Section 24 of the new Act provided that under certain circumstances, acquired land could be returned to affected families. Data are being compiled, but it would be correct to say that thousands of families who had previously given up all hope had their acquisition proceedings set aside and their land returned under Section 24. This Section was upheld and imbued with substance by several judges of the Supreme Court and various High Courts. But in a stunning volte-face, the Narendra Modi government brought in a draconian ordinance on January 1, 2015 to render this Section inoperative along with many other progressive and pro-farmer provisions in the 2013 law. However, in the face of overwhelming nationwide protests led by the Congress and other like-minded parties, on August 30, 2016 Mr. Modi announced in a ‘Mann ki Baat’ speech the withdrawal of the amendments proposed by his government.

Now, the Supreme Court, in Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (February 2018), has effectively implemented the provisions of the lapsed ordinance with regard to the retrospective clause. Given that it is at variance with other Benches on the issue, this has now led to the constitution of a five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court to decide whether the Section has to be interpreted expansively or in a narrow sense.

As the Supreme Court gets ready to decide on the fate of this Section in a law that has positively impacted the lives of several farmers/ land owners, it would be appropriate to revisit the legislative intention that existed at the time of its drafting.

It was clear at the draft stage itself that a new law on land acquisition would necessarily have to address the cases of those who had suffered (and continued to suffer) due to the unacceptable provisions of the 1894 law. There were still conflicts surrounding acquisitions that had been initiated decades earlier and where the acquired land was lying unused, bringing no benefit to the state or the former owner.

Please click here to read more.

The Hindu, 5 March, 2018, http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/righting-wrongs-in-land-acquisition/article22925441.ece


Related Articles

 

Write Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Video Archives

Archives

share on Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Feedback
Read Later

Contact Form

Please enter security code
      Close