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]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = '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.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 73,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'catslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 73,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/sonia-gandhi-vetoes-dilution-of-land-acquisition-bill-subodh-ghildiyal-17698/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/sonia-gandhi-vetoes-dilution-of-land-acquisition-bill-subodh-ghildiyal-17698/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'catslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 73
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

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]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = '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.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 74,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 74,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/sonia-gandhi-vetoes-dilution-of-land-acquisition-bill-subodh-ghildiyal-17698/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/sonia-gandhi-vetoes-dilution-of-land-acquisition-bill-subodh-ghildiyal-17698/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 74
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

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]
Code Context
            if (Configure::read('debug')) {

                trigger_error($message, E_USER_WARNING);

            } else {
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr68045d988bf17-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr68045d988bf17-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr68045d988bf17-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr68045d988bf17-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr68045d988bf17-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr68045d988bf17-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr68045d988bf17-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr68045d988bf17-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr68045d988bf17-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 17569,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Sonia Gandhi vetoes dilution of land acquisition bill -Subodh Ghildiyal&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Times of India&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Congress leadership has vetoed the dilution of land acquisition bill, saying that 80% landowners have to agree to let the government acquire their land for private projects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bottomline has been laid down by UPA chief Sonia Gandhi barely two days after a ministerial panel headed by Sharad Pawar finalized the draft bill, which says that consent of 67% landowners would suffice for government to acquire land.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The leadership has made it plain that consent threshold could be diluted to 67% only for acquisition for Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects if the ownership of the land stayed with the government.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The message from the Congress brass, conveyed to the PMO, is learnt to have sent government leaders into a tizzy. They settled on a lenient &#039;clause of consent&#039; to heed the concern of the industry that the requirement of the consent of 80% landowners, provided in the original draft of the bill, would render acquisition of land for industry almost impossible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Congress sources asserted to TOI that there can be no compromise on &amp;quot;not less than 80%&amp;quot; threshold as it flowed Congress&#039;s &amp;quot;political agenda&amp;quot;. The leadership&#039;s insistence is set to trigger a fresh debate when the Union Cabinet takes up the finalized draft for approval. What is particularly discomfiting is that leadership&#039;s demand cannot be ignored even if it has few takers in the government.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The land bill was sent to Pawar-chaired Group of Ministers (GoM) for vetting after a clutch of ministers in-charge of infrastructure portfolios protested against the &amp;quot;stringent&amp;quot; clauses, particularly 80% consent, which they felt would discourage or delay acquisition and hurt private projects. The resistance at a Cabinet meeting in August nudged rural development ministry to dilute the clause seeking &amp;quot;80% consent of landowners and livelihood losers&amp;quot; to &amp;quot;nod of 67% landowners&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the GoM this week sealed the 67% clause, Sonia&#039;s intervention seems to lean on the side of vast rural-farmer populace that is hostile to government&#039;s blanket powers to takeover land for undervalued price.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The leadership&#039;s disagreement reflects an unease that 67% consent norm may not fire the imagination of the section it is addressed to. The discomfiture over government role in acquisition for private projects was evident when heavyweight Congressman and defence minister A K Antony criticized the provision and demanded that 90% consent be made compulsory. His observation in the penultimate meeting of the GoM had indicated not all was fine with the dominant view in the ministerial panel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Land acquisition bill has emerged as another of the flagship legislations with Sonia Gandhi&#039;s imprimatur, a pro-people measure that strategists feel can do what job guarantee scheme and loan waiver did for Congress&#039;s &amp;quot;mother bounty&amp;quot; image in UPA-1.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is felt that freeing the farmers from government&#039;s supreme powers to acquire land for &amp;quot;public purpose&amp;quot;, as mentioned in the existing 1894 law, would shore up party&#039;s credentials among the key social segment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bill is far from the idea of discouraging acquisition, as was originally conceived when agitations rocked the tribal pockets in 2006, and, instead, seeks to incentivize acquisition with better compensation. But the big change may be consent of landowners that is expected to remove arbitrariness of state agencies in taking over land.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Importantly, Special Economic Zones, that constitute a big chunk of acquisition, would be subject to the procedures and compensation of the proposed law, a departure from the present practice that was the root of heartburn among farmers and tribals.
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 20 October, 2012, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Sonia-Gandhi-vetoes-dilution-of-land-acquisition-bill/articleshow/16883905.cms&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;sonia-gandhi-vetoes-dilution-of-land-acquisition-bill-subodh-ghildiyal-17698&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 17698,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 17569,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Sonia Gandhi vetoes dilution of land acquisition bill -Subodh Ghildiyal&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Land Acquisition Bill&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Times of India

Congress leadership has vetoed the dilution of land acquisition bill, saying that 80% landowners have to agree to let the government acquire their land for private projects.

The bottomline has been laid down by UPA chief Sonia Gandhi...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Times of India&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Congress leadership has vetoed the dilution of land acquisition bill, saying that 80% landowners have to agree to let the government acquire their land for private projects.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The bottomline has been laid down by UPA chief Sonia Gandhi barely two days after a ministerial panel headed by Sharad Pawar finalized the draft bill, which says that consent of 67% landowners would suffice for government to acquire land.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The leadership has made it plain that consent threshold could be diluted to 67% only for acquisition for Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects if the ownership of the land stayed with the government.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The message from the Congress brass, conveyed to the PMO, is learnt to have sent government leaders into a tizzy. They settled on a lenient &#039;clause of consent&#039; to heed the concern of the industry that the requirement of the consent of 80% landowners, provided in the original draft of the bill, would render acquisition of land for industry almost impossible.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Congress sources asserted to TOI that there can be no compromise on &amp;quot;not less than 80%&amp;quot; threshold as it flowed Congress&#039;s &amp;quot;political agenda&amp;quot;. The leadership&#039;s insistence is set to trigger a fresh debate when the Union Cabinet takes up the finalized draft for approval. What is particularly discomfiting is that leadership&#039;s demand cannot be ignored even if it has few takers in the government.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The land bill was sent to Pawar-chaired Group of Ministers (GoM) for vetting after a clutch of ministers in-charge of infrastructure portfolios protested against the &amp;quot;stringent&amp;quot; clauses, particularly 80% consent, which they felt would discourage or delay acquisition and hurt private projects. The resistance at a Cabinet meeting in August nudged rural development ministry to dilute the clause seeking &amp;quot;80% consent of landowners and livelihood losers&amp;quot; to &amp;quot;nod of 67% landowners&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;While the GoM this week sealed the 67% clause, Sonia&#039;s intervention seems to lean on the side of vast rural-farmer populace that is hostile to government&#039;s blanket powers to takeover land for undervalued price.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The leadership&#039;s disagreement reflects an unease that 67% consent norm may not fire the imagination of the section it is addressed to. The discomfiture over government role in acquisition for private projects was evident when heavyweight Congressman and defence minister A K Antony criticized the provision and demanded that 90% consent be made compulsory. His observation in the penultimate meeting of the GoM had indicated not all was fine with the dominant view in the ministerial panel.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Land acquisition bill has emerged as another of the flagship legislations with Sonia Gandhi&#039;s imprimatur, a pro-people measure that strategists feel can do what job guarantee scheme and loan waiver did for Congress&#039;s &amp;quot;mother bounty&amp;quot; image in UPA-1.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It is felt that freeing the farmers from government&#039;s supreme powers to acquire land for &amp;quot;public purpose&amp;quot;, as mentioned in the existing 1894 law, would shore up party&#039;s credentials among the key social segment.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The bill is far from the idea of discouraging acquisition, as was originally conceived when agitations rocked the tribal pockets in 2006, and, instead, seeks to incentivize acquisition with better compensation. But the big change may be consent of landowners that is expected to remove arbitrariness of state agencies in taking over land.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Importantly, Special Economic Zones, that constitute a big chunk of acquisition, would be subject to the procedures and compensation of the proposed law, a departure from the present practice that was the root of heartburn among farmers and tribals.&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 17569,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Sonia Gandhi vetoes dilution of land acquisition bill -Subodh Ghildiyal&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Times of India&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Congress leadership has vetoed the dilution of land acquisition bill, saying that 80% landowners have to agree to let the government acquire their land for private projects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bottomline has been laid down by UPA chief Sonia Gandhi barely two days after a ministerial panel headed by Sharad Pawar finalized the draft bill, which says that consent of 67% landowners would suffice for government to acquire land.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The leadership has made it plain that consent threshold could be diluted to 67% only for acquisition for Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects if the ownership of the land stayed with the government.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The message from the Congress brass, conveyed to the PMO, is learnt to have sent government leaders into a tizzy. They settled on a lenient &#039;clause of consent&#039; to heed the concern of the industry that the requirement of the consent of 80% landowners, provided in the original draft of the bill, would render acquisition of land for industry almost impossible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Congress sources asserted to TOI that there can be no compromise on &amp;quot;not less than 80%&amp;quot; threshold as it flowed Congress&#039;s &amp;quot;political agenda&amp;quot;. The leadership&#039;s insistence is set to trigger a fresh debate when the Union Cabinet takes up the finalized draft for approval. What is particularly discomfiting is that leadership&#039;s demand cannot be ignored even if it has few takers in the government.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The land bill was sent to Pawar-chaired Group of Ministers (GoM) for vetting after a clutch of ministers in-charge of infrastructure portfolios protested against the &amp;quot;stringent&amp;quot; clauses, particularly 80% consent, which they felt would discourage or delay acquisition and hurt private projects. The resistance at a Cabinet meeting in August nudged rural development ministry to dilute the clause seeking &amp;quot;80% consent of landowners and livelihood losers&amp;quot; to &amp;quot;nod of 67% landowners&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the GoM this week sealed the 67% clause, Sonia&#039;s intervention seems to lean on the side of vast rural-farmer populace that is hostile to government&#039;s blanket powers to takeover land for undervalued price.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The leadership&#039;s disagreement reflects an unease that 67% consent norm may not fire the imagination of the section it is addressed to. The discomfiture over government role in acquisition for private projects was evident when heavyweight Congressman and defence minister A K Antony criticized the provision and demanded that 90% consent be made compulsory. His observation in the penultimate meeting of the GoM had indicated not all was fine with the dominant view in the ministerial panel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Land acquisition bill has emerged as another of the flagship legislations with Sonia Gandhi&#039;s imprimatur, a pro-people measure that strategists feel can do what job guarantee scheme and loan waiver did for Congress&#039;s &amp;quot;mother bounty&amp;quot; image in UPA-1.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is felt that freeing the farmers from government&#039;s supreme powers to acquire land for &amp;quot;public purpose&amp;quot;, as mentioned in the existing 1894 law, would shore up party&#039;s credentials among the key social segment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bill is far from the idea of discouraging acquisition, as was originally conceived when agitations rocked the tribal pockets in 2006, and, instead, seeks to incentivize acquisition with better compensation. But the big change may be consent of landowners that is expected to remove arbitrariness of state agencies in taking over land.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Importantly, Special Economic Zones, that constitute a big chunk of acquisition, would be subject to the procedures and compensation of the proposed law, a departure from the present practice that was the root of heartburn among farmers and tribals.
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 20 October, 2012, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Sonia-Gandhi-vetoes-dilution-of-land-acquisition-bill/articleshow/16883905.cms&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;sonia-gandhi-vetoes-dilution-of-land-acquisition-bill-subodh-ghildiyal-17698&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 17698,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 17569
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Sonia Gandhi vetoes dilution of land acquisition bill -Subodh Ghildiyal&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Land Acquisition Bill&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Times of India

Congress leadership has vetoed the dilution of land acquisition bill, saying that 80% landowners have to agree to let the government acquire their land for private projects.

The bottomline has been laid down by UPA chief Sonia Gandhi...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Times of India&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Congress leadership has vetoed the dilution of land acquisition bill, saying that 80% landowners have to agree to let the government acquire their land for private projects.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The bottomline has been laid down by UPA chief Sonia Gandhi barely two days after a ministerial panel headed by Sharad Pawar finalized the draft bill, which says that consent of 67% landowners would suffice for government to acquire land.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The leadership has made it plain that consent threshold could be diluted to 67% only for acquisition for Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects if the ownership of the land stayed with the government.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The message from the Congress brass, conveyed to the PMO, is learnt to have sent government leaders into a tizzy. They settled on a lenient &#039;clause of consent&#039; to heed the concern of the industry that the requirement of the consent of 80% landowners, provided in the original draft of the bill, would render acquisition of land for industry almost impossible.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Congress sources asserted to TOI that there can be no compromise on &amp;quot;not less than 80%&amp;quot; threshold as it flowed Congress&#039;s &amp;quot;political agenda&amp;quot;. The leadership&#039;s insistence is set to trigger a fresh debate when the Union Cabinet takes up the finalized draft for approval. What is particularly discomfiting is that leadership&#039;s demand cannot be ignored even if it has few takers in the government.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The land bill was sent to Pawar-chaired Group of Ministers (GoM) for vetting after a clutch of ministers in-charge of infrastructure portfolios protested against the &amp;quot;stringent&amp;quot; clauses, particularly 80% consent, which they felt would discourage or delay acquisition and hurt private projects. The resistance at a Cabinet meeting in August nudged rural development ministry to dilute the clause seeking &amp;quot;80% consent of landowners and livelihood losers&amp;quot; to &amp;quot;nod of 67% landowners&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;While the GoM this week sealed the 67% clause, Sonia&#039;s intervention seems to lean on the side of vast rural-farmer populace that is hostile to government&#039;s blanket powers to takeover land for undervalued price.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The leadership&#039;s disagreement reflects an unease that 67% consent norm may not fire the imagination of the section it is addressed to. The discomfiture over government role in acquisition for private projects was evident when heavyweight Congressman and defence minister A K Antony criticized the provision and demanded that 90% consent be made compulsory. His observation in the penultimate meeting of the GoM had indicated not all was fine with the dominant view in the ministerial panel.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Land acquisition bill has emerged as another of the flagship legislations with Sonia Gandhi&#039;s imprimatur, a pro-people measure that strategists feel can do what job guarantee scheme and loan waiver did for Congress&#039;s &amp;quot;mother bounty&amp;quot; image in UPA-1.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It is felt that freeing the farmers from government&#039;s supreme powers to acquire land for &amp;quot;public purpose&amp;quot;, as mentioned in the existing 1894 law, would shore up party&#039;s credentials among the key social segment.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The bill is far from the idea of discouraging acquisition, as was originally conceived when agitations rocked the tribal pockets in 2006, and, instead, seeks to incentivize acquisition with better compensation. But the big change may be consent of landowners that is expected to remove arbitrariness of state agencies in taking over land.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Importantly, Special Economic Zones, that constitute a big chunk of acquisition, would be subject to the procedures and compensation of the proposed law, a departure from the present practice that was the root of heartburn among farmers and tribals.&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/sonia-gandhi-vetoes-dilution-of-land-acquisition-bill-subodh-ghildiyal-17698.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Sonia Gandhi vetoes dilution of land acquisition bill -Subodh Ghildiyal | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Times of India

Congress leadership has vetoed the dilution of land acquisition bill, saying that 80% landowners have to agree to let the government acquire their land for private projects.

The bottomline has been laid down by UPA chief Sonia Gandhi..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Sonia Gandhi vetoes dilution of land acquisition bill -Subodh Ghildiyal</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-The Times of India<br /><br />Congress leadership has vetoed the dilution of land acquisition bill, saying that 80% landowners have to agree to let the government acquire their land for private projects.<br /><br />The bottomline has been laid down by UPA chief Sonia Gandhi barely two days after a ministerial panel headed by Sharad Pawar finalized the draft bill, which says that consent of 67% landowners would suffice for government to acquire land.<br /><br />The leadership has made it plain that consent threshold could be diluted to 67% only for acquisition for Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects if the ownership of the land stayed with the government.<br /><br />The message from the Congress brass, conveyed to the PMO, is learnt to have sent government leaders into a tizzy. They settled on a lenient 'clause of consent' to heed the concern of the industry that the requirement of the consent of 80% landowners, provided in the original draft of the bill, would render acquisition of land for industry almost impossible.<br /><br />Congress sources asserted to TOI that there can be no compromise on &quot;not less than 80%&quot; threshold as it flowed Congress's &quot;political agenda&quot;. The leadership's insistence is set to trigger a fresh debate when the Union Cabinet takes up the finalized draft for approval. What is particularly discomfiting is that leadership's demand cannot be ignored even if it has few takers in the government.<br /><br />The land bill was sent to Pawar-chaired Group of Ministers (GoM) for vetting after a clutch of ministers in-charge of infrastructure portfolios protested against the &quot;stringent&quot; clauses, particularly 80% consent, which they felt would discourage or delay acquisition and hurt private projects. The resistance at a Cabinet meeting in August nudged rural development ministry to dilute the clause seeking &quot;80% consent of landowners and livelihood losers&quot; to &quot;nod of 67% landowners&quot;.<br /><br />While the GoM this week sealed the 67% clause, Sonia's intervention seems to lean on the side of vast rural-farmer populace that is hostile to government's blanket powers to takeover land for undervalued price.<br /><br />The leadership's disagreement reflects an unease that 67% consent norm may not fire the imagination of the section it is addressed to. The discomfiture over government role in acquisition for private projects was evident when heavyweight Congressman and defence minister A K Antony criticized the provision and demanded that 90% consent be made compulsory. His observation in the penultimate meeting of the GoM had indicated not all was fine with the dominant view in the ministerial panel.<br /><br />Land acquisition bill has emerged as another of the flagship legislations with Sonia Gandhi's imprimatur, a pro-people measure that strategists feel can do what job guarantee scheme and loan waiver did for Congress's &quot;mother bounty&quot; image in UPA-1.<br /><br />It is felt that freeing the farmers from government's supreme powers to acquire land for &quot;public purpose&quot;, as mentioned in the existing 1894 law, would shore up party's credentials among the key social segment.<br /><br />The bill is far from the idea of discouraging acquisition, as was originally conceived when agitations rocked the tribal pockets in 2006, and, instead, seeks to incentivize acquisition with better compensation. But the big change may be consent of landowners that is expected to remove arbitrariness of state agencies in taking over land.<br /><br />Importantly, Special Economic Zones, that constitute a big chunk of acquisition, would be subject to the procedures and compensation of the proposed law, a departure from the present practice that was the root of heartburn among farmers and tribals.</div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$maxBufferLength = (int) 8192
$file = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php'
$line = (int) 853
$message = 'Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853'
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

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]
Code Context
            $response->getStatusCode(),

            ($reasonPhrase ? ' ' . $reasonPhrase : '')

        ));
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr68045d988bf17-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr68045d988bf17-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr68045d988bf17-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr68045d988bf17-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr68045d988bf17-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr68045d988bf17-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr68045d988bf17-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr68045d988bf17-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr68045d988bf17-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 17569,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Sonia Gandhi vetoes dilution of land acquisition bill -Subodh Ghildiyal&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Times of India&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Congress leadership has vetoed the dilution of land acquisition bill, saying that 80% landowners have to agree to let the government acquire their land for private projects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bottomline has been laid down by UPA chief Sonia Gandhi barely two days after a ministerial panel headed by Sharad Pawar finalized the draft bill, which says that consent of 67% landowners would suffice for government to acquire land.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The leadership has made it plain that consent threshold could be diluted to 67% only for acquisition for Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects if the ownership of the land stayed with the government.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The message from the Congress brass, conveyed to the PMO, is learnt to have sent government leaders into a tizzy. They settled on a lenient &#039;clause of consent&#039; to heed the concern of the industry that the requirement of the consent of 80% landowners, provided in the original draft of the bill, would render acquisition of land for industry almost impossible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Congress sources asserted to TOI that there can be no compromise on &amp;quot;not less than 80%&amp;quot; threshold as it flowed Congress&#039;s &amp;quot;political agenda&amp;quot;. The leadership&#039;s insistence is set to trigger a fresh debate when the Union Cabinet takes up the finalized draft for approval. What is particularly discomfiting is that leadership&#039;s demand cannot be ignored even if it has few takers in the government.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The land bill was sent to Pawar-chaired Group of Ministers (GoM) for vetting after a clutch of ministers in-charge of infrastructure portfolios protested against the &amp;quot;stringent&amp;quot; clauses, particularly 80% consent, which they felt would discourage or delay acquisition and hurt private projects. The resistance at a Cabinet meeting in August nudged rural development ministry to dilute the clause seeking &amp;quot;80% consent of landowners and livelihood losers&amp;quot; to &amp;quot;nod of 67% landowners&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the GoM this week sealed the 67% clause, Sonia&#039;s intervention seems to lean on the side of vast rural-farmer populace that is hostile to government&#039;s blanket powers to takeover land for undervalued price.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The leadership&#039;s disagreement reflects an unease that 67% consent norm may not fire the imagination of the section it is addressed to. The discomfiture over government role in acquisition for private projects was evident when heavyweight Congressman and defence minister A K Antony criticized the provision and demanded that 90% consent be made compulsory. His observation in the penultimate meeting of the GoM had indicated not all was fine with the dominant view in the ministerial panel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Land acquisition bill has emerged as another of the flagship legislations with Sonia Gandhi&#039;s imprimatur, a pro-people measure that strategists feel can do what job guarantee scheme and loan waiver did for Congress&#039;s &amp;quot;mother bounty&amp;quot; image in UPA-1.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is felt that freeing the farmers from government&#039;s supreme powers to acquire land for &amp;quot;public purpose&amp;quot;, as mentioned in the existing 1894 law, would shore up party&#039;s credentials among the key social segment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bill is far from the idea of discouraging acquisition, as was originally conceived when agitations rocked the tribal pockets in 2006, and, instead, seeks to incentivize acquisition with better compensation. But the big change may be consent of landowners that is expected to remove arbitrariness of state agencies in taking over land.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Importantly, Special Economic Zones, that constitute a big chunk of acquisition, would be subject to the procedures and compensation of the proposed law, a departure from the present practice that was the root of heartburn among farmers and tribals.
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 20 October, 2012, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Sonia-Gandhi-vetoes-dilution-of-land-acquisition-bill/articleshow/16883905.cms&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;sonia-gandhi-vetoes-dilution-of-land-acquisition-bill-subodh-ghildiyal-17698&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 17698,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 17569,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Sonia Gandhi vetoes dilution of land acquisition bill -Subodh Ghildiyal&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Land Acquisition Bill&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Times of India

Congress leadership has vetoed the dilution of land acquisition bill, saying that 80% landowners have to agree to let the government acquire their land for private projects.

The bottomline has been laid down by UPA chief Sonia Gandhi...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Times of India&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Congress leadership has vetoed the dilution of land acquisition bill, saying that 80% landowners have to agree to let the government acquire their land for private projects.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The bottomline has been laid down by UPA chief Sonia Gandhi barely two days after a ministerial panel headed by Sharad Pawar finalized the draft bill, which says that consent of 67% landowners would suffice for government to acquire land.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The leadership has made it plain that consent threshold could be diluted to 67% only for acquisition for Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects if the ownership of the land stayed with the government.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The message from the Congress brass, conveyed to the PMO, is learnt to have sent government leaders into a tizzy. They settled on a lenient &#039;clause of consent&#039; to heed the concern of the industry that the requirement of the consent of 80% landowners, provided in the original draft of the bill, would render acquisition of land for industry almost impossible.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Congress sources asserted to TOI that there can be no compromise on &amp;quot;not less than 80%&amp;quot; threshold as it flowed Congress&#039;s &amp;quot;political agenda&amp;quot;. The leadership&#039;s insistence is set to trigger a fresh debate when the Union Cabinet takes up the finalized draft for approval. What is particularly discomfiting is that leadership&#039;s demand cannot be ignored even if it has few takers in the government.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The land bill was sent to Pawar-chaired Group of Ministers (GoM) for vetting after a clutch of ministers in-charge of infrastructure portfolios protested against the &amp;quot;stringent&amp;quot; clauses, particularly 80% consent, which they felt would discourage or delay acquisition and hurt private projects. The resistance at a Cabinet meeting in August nudged rural development ministry to dilute the clause seeking &amp;quot;80% consent of landowners and livelihood losers&amp;quot; to &amp;quot;nod of 67% landowners&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;While the GoM this week sealed the 67% clause, Sonia&#039;s intervention seems to lean on the side of vast rural-farmer populace that is hostile to government&#039;s blanket powers to takeover land for undervalued price.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The leadership&#039;s disagreement reflects an unease that 67% consent norm may not fire the imagination of the section it is addressed to. The discomfiture over government role in acquisition for private projects was evident when heavyweight Congressman and defence minister A K Antony criticized the provision and demanded that 90% consent be made compulsory. His observation in the penultimate meeting of the GoM had indicated not all was fine with the dominant view in the ministerial panel.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Land acquisition bill has emerged as another of the flagship legislations with Sonia Gandhi&#039;s imprimatur, a pro-people measure that strategists feel can do what job guarantee scheme and loan waiver did for Congress&#039;s &amp;quot;mother bounty&amp;quot; image in UPA-1.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It is felt that freeing the farmers from government&#039;s supreme powers to acquire land for &amp;quot;public purpose&amp;quot;, as mentioned in the existing 1894 law, would shore up party&#039;s credentials among the key social segment.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The bill is far from the idea of discouraging acquisition, as was originally conceived when agitations rocked the tribal pockets in 2006, and, instead, seeks to incentivize acquisition with better compensation. But the big change may be consent of landowners that is expected to remove arbitrariness of state agencies in taking over land.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Importantly, Special Economic Zones, that constitute a big chunk of acquisition, would be subject to the procedures and compensation of the proposed law, a departure from the present practice that was the root of heartburn among farmers and tribals.&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 17569,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Sonia Gandhi vetoes dilution of land acquisition bill -Subodh Ghildiyal&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Times of India&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Congress leadership has vetoed the dilution of land acquisition bill, saying that 80% landowners have to agree to let the government acquire their land for private projects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bottomline has been laid down by UPA chief Sonia Gandhi barely two days after a ministerial panel headed by Sharad Pawar finalized the draft bill, which says that consent of 67% landowners would suffice for government to acquire land.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The leadership has made it plain that consent threshold could be diluted to 67% only for acquisition for Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects if the ownership of the land stayed with the government.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The message from the Congress brass, conveyed to the PMO, is learnt to have sent government leaders into a tizzy. They settled on a lenient &#039;clause of consent&#039; to heed the concern of the industry that the requirement of the consent of 80% landowners, provided in the original draft of the bill, would render acquisition of land for industry almost impossible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Congress sources asserted to TOI that there can be no compromise on &amp;quot;not less than 80%&amp;quot; threshold as it flowed Congress&#039;s &amp;quot;political agenda&amp;quot;. The leadership&#039;s insistence is set to trigger a fresh debate when the Union Cabinet takes up the finalized draft for approval. What is particularly discomfiting is that leadership&#039;s demand cannot be ignored even if it has few takers in the government.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The land bill was sent to Pawar-chaired Group of Ministers (GoM) for vetting after a clutch of ministers in-charge of infrastructure portfolios protested against the &amp;quot;stringent&amp;quot; clauses, particularly 80% consent, which they felt would discourage or delay acquisition and hurt private projects. The resistance at a Cabinet meeting in August nudged rural development ministry to dilute the clause seeking &amp;quot;80% consent of landowners and livelihood losers&amp;quot; to &amp;quot;nod of 67% landowners&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the GoM this week sealed the 67% clause, Sonia&#039;s intervention seems to lean on the side of vast rural-farmer populace that is hostile to government&#039;s blanket powers to takeover land for undervalued price.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The leadership&#039;s disagreement reflects an unease that 67% consent norm may not fire the imagination of the section it is addressed to. The discomfiture over government role in acquisition for private projects was evident when heavyweight Congressman and defence minister A K Antony criticized the provision and demanded that 90% consent be made compulsory. His observation in the penultimate meeting of the GoM had indicated not all was fine with the dominant view in the ministerial panel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Land acquisition bill has emerged as another of the flagship legislations with Sonia Gandhi&#039;s imprimatur, a pro-people measure that strategists feel can do what job guarantee scheme and loan waiver did for Congress&#039;s &amp;quot;mother bounty&amp;quot; image in UPA-1.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is felt that freeing the farmers from government&#039;s supreme powers to acquire land for &amp;quot;public purpose&amp;quot;, as mentioned in the existing 1894 law, would shore up party&#039;s credentials among the key social segment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bill is far from the idea of discouraging acquisition, as was originally conceived when agitations rocked the tribal pockets in 2006, and, instead, seeks to incentivize acquisition with better compensation. But the big change may be consent of landowners that is expected to remove arbitrariness of state agencies in taking over land.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Importantly, Special Economic Zones, that constitute a big chunk of acquisition, would be subject to the procedures and compensation of the proposed law, a departure from the present practice that was the root of heartburn among farmers and tribals.
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 20 October, 2012, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Sonia-Gandhi-vetoes-dilution-of-land-acquisition-bill/articleshow/16883905.cms&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;sonia-gandhi-vetoes-dilution-of-land-acquisition-bill-subodh-ghildiyal-17698&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 17698,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 17569
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Sonia Gandhi vetoes dilution of land acquisition bill -Subodh Ghildiyal&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Land Acquisition Bill&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Times of India

Congress leadership has vetoed the dilution of land acquisition bill, saying that 80% landowners have to agree to let the government acquire their land for private projects.

The bottomline has been laid down by UPA chief Sonia Gandhi...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Times of India&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Congress leadership has vetoed the dilution of land acquisition bill, saying that 80% landowners have to agree to let the government acquire their land for private projects.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The bottomline has been laid down by UPA chief Sonia Gandhi barely two days after a ministerial panel headed by Sharad Pawar finalized the draft bill, which says that consent of 67% landowners would suffice for government to acquire land.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The leadership has made it plain that consent threshold could be diluted to 67% only for acquisition for Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects if the ownership of the land stayed with the government.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The message from the Congress brass, conveyed to the PMO, is learnt to have sent government leaders into a tizzy. They settled on a lenient &#039;clause of consent&#039; to heed the concern of the industry that the requirement of the consent of 80% landowners, provided in the original draft of the bill, would render acquisition of land for industry almost impossible.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Congress sources asserted to TOI that there can be no compromise on &amp;quot;not less than 80%&amp;quot; threshold as it flowed Congress&#039;s &amp;quot;political agenda&amp;quot;. The leadership&#039;s insistence is set to trigger a fresh debate when the Union Cabinet takes up the finalized draft for approval. What is particularly discomfiting is that leadership&#039;s demand cannot be ignored even if it has few takers in the government.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The land bill was sent to Pawar-chaired Group of Ministers (GoM) for vetting after a clutch of ministers in-charge of infrastructure portfolios protested against the &amp;quot;stringent&amp;quot; clauses, particularly 80% consent, which they felt would discourage or delay acquisition and hurt private projects. The resistance at a Cabinet meeting in August nudged rural development ministry to dilute the clause seeking &amp;quot;80% consent of landowners and livelihood losers&amp;quot; to &amp;quot;nod of 67% landowners&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;While the GoM this week sealed the 67% clause, Sonia&#039;s intervention seems to lean on the side of vast rural-farmer populace that is hostile to government&#039;s blanket powers to takeover land for undervalued price.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The leadership&#039;s disagreement reflects an unease that 67% consent norm may not fire the imagination of the section it is addressed to. The discomfiture over government role in acquisition for private projects was evident when heavyweight Congressman and defence minister A K Antony criticized the provision and demanded that 90% consent be made compulsory. His observation in the penultimate meeting of the GoM had indicated not all was fine with the dominant view in the ministerial panel.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Land acquisition bill has emerged as another of the flagship legislations with Sonia Gandhi&#039;s imprimatur, a pro-people measure that strategists feel can do what job guarantee scheme and loan waiver did for Congress&#039;s &amp;quot;mother bounty&amp;quot; image in UPA-1.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It is felt that freeing the farmers from government&#039;s supreme powers to acquire land for &amp;quot;public purpose&amp;quot;, as mentioned in the existing 1894 law, would shore up party&#039;s credentials among the key social segment.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The bill is far from the idea of discouraging acquisition, as was originally conceived when agitations rocked the tribal pockets in 2006, and, instead, seeks to incentivize acquisition with better compensation. But the big change may be consent of landowners that is expected to remove arbitrariness of state agencies in taking over land.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Importantly, Special Economic Zones, that constitute a big chunk of acquisition, would be subject to the procedures and compensation of the proposed law, a departure from the present practice that was the root of heartburn among farmers and tribals.&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/sonia-gandhi-vetoes-dilution-of-land-acquisition-bill-subodh-ghildiyal-17698.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Sonia Gandhi vetoes dilution of land acquisition bill -Subodh Ghildiyal | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Times of India

Congress leadership has vetoed the dilution of land acquisition bill, saying that 80% landowners have to agree to let the government acquire their land for private projects.

The bottomline has been laid down by UPA chief Sonia Gandhi..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Sonia Gandhi vetoes dilution of land acquisition bill -Subodh Ghildiyal</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-The Times of India<br /><br />Congress leadership has vetoed the dilution of land acquisition bill, saying that 80% landowners have to agree to let the government acquire their land for private projects.<br /><br />The bottomline has been laid down by UPA chief Sonia Gandhi barely two days after a ministerial panel headed by Sharad Pawar finalized the draft bill, which says that consent of 67% landowners would suffice for government to acquire land.<br /><br />The leadership has made it plain that consent threshold could be diluted to 67% only for acquisition for Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects if the ownership of the land stayed with the government.<br /><br />The message from the Congress brass, conveyed to the PMO, is learnt to have sent government leaders into a tizzy. They settled on a lenient 'clause of consent' to heed the concern of the industry that the requirement of the consent of 80% landowners, provided in the original draft of the bill, would render acquisition of land for industry almost impossible.<br /><br />Congress sources asserted to TOI that there can be no compromise on &quot;not less than 80%&quot; threshold as it flowed Congress's &quot;political agenda&quot;. The leadership's insistence is set to trigger a fresh debate when the Union Cabinet takes up the finalized draft for approval. What is particularly discomfiting is that leadership's demand cannot be ignored even if it has few takers in the government.<br /><br />The land bill was sent to Pawar-chaired Group of Ministers (GoM) for vetting after a clutch of ministers in-charge of infrastructure portfolios protested against the &quot;stringent&quot; clauses, particularly 80% consent, which they felt would discourage or delay acquisition and hurt private projects. The resistance at a Cabinet meeting in August nudged rural development ministry to dilute the clause seeking &quot;80% consent of landowners and livelihood losers&quot; to &quot;nod of 67% landowners&quot;.<br /><br />While the GoM this week sealed the 67% clause, Sonia's intervention seems to lean on the side of vast rural-farmer populace that is hostile to government's blanket powers to takeover land for undervalued price.<br /><br />The leadership's disagreement reflects an unease that 67% consent norm may not fire the imagination of the section it is addressed to. The discomfiture over government role in acquisition for private projects was evident when heavyweight Congressman and defence minister A K Antony criticized the provision and demanded that 90% consent be made compulsory. His observation in the penultimate meeting of the GoM had indicated not all was fine with the dominant view in the ministerial panel.<br /><br />Land acquisition bill has emerged as another of the flagship legislations with Sonia Gandhi's imprimatur, a pro-people measure that strategists feel can do what job guarantee scheme and loan waiver did for Congress's &quot;mother bounty&quot; image in UPA-1.<br /><br />It is felt that freeing the farmers from government's supreme powers to acquire land for &quot;public purpose&quot;, as mentioned in the existing 1894 law, would shore up party's credentials among the key social segment.<br /><br />The bill is far from the idea of discouraging acquisition, as was originally conceived when agitations rocked the tribal pockets in 2006, and, instead, seeks to incentivize acquisition with better compensation. But the big change may be consent of landowners that is expected to remove arbitrariness of state agencies in taking over land.<br /><br />Importantly, Special Economic Zones, that constitute a big chunk of acquisition, would be subject to the procedures and compensation of the proposed law, a departure from the present practice that was the root of heartburn among farmers and tribals.</div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$reasonPhrase = 'OK'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitStatusLine() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 54
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

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]
Code Context
                    $value

                ), $first);

                $first = false;
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr68045d988bf17-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr68045d988bf17-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr68045d988bf17-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr68045d988bf17-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr68045d988bf17-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr68045d988bf17-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr68045d988bf17-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr68045d988bf17-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr68045d988bf17-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 17569,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Sonia Gandhi vetoes dilution of land acquisition bill -Subodh Ghildiyal&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Times of India&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Congress leadership has vetoed the dilution of land acquisition bill, saying that 80% landowners have to agree to let the government acquire their land for private projects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bottomline has been laid down by UPA chief Sonia Gandhi barely two days after a ministerial panel headed by Sharad Pawar finalized the draft bill, which says that consent of 67% landowners would suffice for government to acquire land.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The leadership has made it plain that consent threshold could be diluted to 67% only for acquisition for Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects if the ownership of the land stayed with the government.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The message from the Congress brass, conveyed to the PMO, is learnt to have sent government leaders into a tizzy. They settled on a lenient &#039;clause of consent&#039; to heed the concern of the industry that the requirement of the consent of 80% landowners, provided in the original draft of the bill, would render acquisition of land for industry almost impossible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Congress sources asserted to TOI that there can be no compromise on &amp;quot;not less than 80%&amp;quot; threshold as it flowed Congress&#039;s &amp;quot;political agenda&amp;quot;. The leadership&#039;s insistence is set to trigger a fresh debate when the Union Cabinet takes up the finalized draft for approval. What is particularly discomfiting is that leadership&#039;s demand cannot be ignored even if it has few takers in the government.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The land bill was sent to Pawar-chaired Group of Ministers (GoM) for vetting after a clutch of ministers in-charge of infrastructure portfolios protested against the &amp;quot;stringent&amp;quot; clauses, particularly 80% consent, which they felt would discourage or delay acquisition and hurt private projects. The resistance at a Cabinet meeting in August nudged rural development ministry to dilute the clause seeking &amp;quot;80% consent of landowners and livelihood losers&amp;quot; to &amp;quot;nod of 67% landowners&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the GoM this week sealed the 67% clause, Sonia&#039;s intervention seems to lean on the side of vast rural-farmer populace that is hostile to government&#039;s blanket powers to takeover land for undervalued price.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The leadership&#039;s disagreement reflects an unease that 67% consent norm may not fire the imagination of the section it is addressed to. The discomfiture over government role in acquisition for private projects was evident when heavyweight Congressman and defence minister A K Antony criticized the provision and demanded that 90% consent be made compulsory. His observation in the penultimate meeting of the GoM had indicated not all was fine with the dominant view in the ministerial panel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Land acquisition bill has emerged as another of the flagship legislations with Sonia Gandhi&#039;s imprimatur, a pro-people measure that strategists feel can do what job guarantee scheme and loan waiver did for Congress&#039;s &amp;quot;mother bounty&amp;quot; image in UPA-1.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is felt that freeing the farmers from government&#039;s supreme powers to acquire land for &amp;quot;public purpose&amp;quot;, as mentioned in the existing 1894 law, would shore up party&#039;s credentials among the key social segment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bill is far from the idea of discouraging acquisition, as was originally conceived when agitations rocked the tribal pockets in 2006, and, instead, seeks to incentivize acquisition with better compensation. But the big change may be consent of landowners that is expected to remove arbitrariness of state agencies in taking over land.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Importantly, Special Economic Zones, that constitute a big chunk of acquisition, would be subject to the procedures and compensation of the proposed law, a departure from the present practice that was the root of heartburn among farmers and tribals.
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 20 October, 2012, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Sonia-Gandhi-vetoes-dilution-of-land-acquisition-bill/articleshow/16883905.cms&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;sonia-gandhi-vetoes-dilution-of-land-acquisition-bill-subodh-ghildiyal-17698&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 17698,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 17569,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Sonia Gandhi vetoes dilution of land acquisition bill -Subodh Ghildiyal&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Land Acquisition Bill&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Times of India

Congress leadership has vetoed the dilution of land acquisition bill, saying that 80% landowners have to agree to let the government acquire their land for private projects.

The bottomline has been laid down by UPA chief Sonia Gandhi...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Times of India&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Congress leadership has vetoed the dilution of land acquisition bill, saying that 80% landowners have to agree to let the government acquire their land for private projects.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The bottomline has been laid down by UPA chief Sonia Gandhi barely two days after a ministerial panel headed by Sharad Pawar finalized the draft bill, which says that consent of 67% landowners would suffice for government to acquire land.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The leadership has made it plain that consent threshold could be diluted to 67% only for acquisition for Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects if the ownership of the land stayed with the government.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The message from the Congress brass, conveyed to the PMO, is learnt to have sent government leaders into a tizzy. They settled on a lenient &#039;clause of consent&#039; to heed the concern of the industry that the requirement of the consent of 80% landowners, provided in the original draft of the bill, would render acquisition of land for industry almost impossible.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Congress sources asserted to TOI that there can be no compromise on &amp;quot;not less than 80%&amp;quot; threshold as it flowed Congress&#039;s &amp;quot;political agenda&amp;quot;. The leadership&#039;s insistence is set to trigger a fresh debate when the Union Cabinet takes up the finalized draft for approval. What is particularly discomfiting is that leadership&#039;s demand cannot be ignored even if it has few takers in the government.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The land bill was sent to Pawar-chaired Group of Ministers (GoM) for vetting after a clutch of ministers in-charge of infrastructure portfolios protested against the &amp;quot;stringent&amp;quot; clauses, particularly 80% consent, which they felt would discourage or delay acquisition and hurt private projects. The resistance at a Cabinet meeting in August nudged rural development ministry to dilute the clause seeking &amp;quot;80% consent of landowners and livelihood losers&amp;quot; to &amp;quot;nod of 67% landowners&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;While the GoM this week sealed the 67% clause, Sonia&#039;s intervention seems to lean on the side of vast rural-farmer populace that is hostile to government&#039;s blanket powers to takeover land for undervalued price.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The leadership&#039;s disagreement reflects an unease that 67% consent norm may not fire the imagination of the section it is addressed to. The discomfiture over government role in acquisition for private projects was evident when heavyweight Congressman and defence minister A K Antony criticized the provision and demanded that 90% consent be made compulsory. His observation in the penultimate meeting of the GoM had indicated not all was fine with the dominant view in the ministerial panel.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Land acquisition bill has emerged as another of the flagship legislations with Sonia Gandhi&#039;s imprimatur, a pro-people measure that strategists feel can do what job guarantee scheme and loan waiver did for Congress&#039;s &amp;quot;mother bounty&amp;quot; image in UPA-1.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It is felt that freeing the farmers from government&#039;s supreme powers to acquire land for &amp;quot;public purpose&amp;quot;, as mentioned in the existing 1894 law, would shore up party&#039;s credentials among the key social segment.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The bill is far from the idea of discouraging acquisition, as was originally conceived when agitations rocked the tribal pockets in 2006, and, instead, seeks to incentivize acquisition with better compensation. But the big change may be consent of landowners that is expected to remove arbitrariness of state agencies in taking over land.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Importantly, Special Economic Zones, that constitute a big chunk of acquisition, would be subject to the procedures and compensation of the proposed law, a departure from the present practice that was the root of heartburn among farmers and tribals.&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 17569,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Sonia Gandhi vetoes dilution of land acquisition bill -Subodh Ghildiyal&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Times of India&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Congress leadership has vetoed the dilution of land acquisition bill, saying that 80% landowners have to agree to let the government acquire their land for private projects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bottomline has been laid down by UPA chief Sonia Gandhi barely two days after a ministerial panel headed by Sharad Pawar finalized the draft bill, which says that consent of 67% landowners would suffice for government to acquire land.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The leadership has made it plain that consent threshold could be diluted to 67% only for acquisition for Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects if the ownership of the land stayed with the government.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The message from the Congress brass, conveyed to the PMO, is learnt to have sent government leaders into a tizzy. They settled on a lenient &#039;clause of consent&#039; to heed the concern of the industry that the requirement of the consent of 80% landowners, provided in the original draft of the bill, would render acquisition of land for industry almost impossible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Congress sources asserted to TOI that there can be no compromise on &amp;quot;not less than 80%&amp;quot; threshold as it flowed Congress&#039;s &amp;quot;political agenda&amp;quot;. The leadership&#039;s insistence is set to trigger a fresh debate when the Union Cabinet takes up the finalized draft for approval. What is particularly discomfiting is that leadership&#039;s demand cannot be ignored even if it has few takers in the government.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The land bill was sent to Pawar-chaired Group of Ministers (GoM) for vetting after a clutch of ministers in-charge of infrastructure portfolios protested against the &amp;quot;stringent&amp;quot; clauses, particularly 80% consent, which they felt would discourage or delay acquisition and hurt private projects. The resistance at a Cabinet meeting in August nudged rural development ministry to dilute the clause seeking &amp;quot;80% consent of landowners and livelihood losers&amp;quot; to &amp;quot;nod of 67% landowners&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the GoM this week sealed the 67% clause, Sonia&#039;s intervention seems to lean on the side of vast rural-farmer populace that is hostile to government&#039;s blanket powers to takeover land for undervalued price.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The leadership&#039;s disagreement reflects an unease that 67% consent norm may not fire the imagination of the section it is addressed to. The discomfiture over government role in acquisition for private projects was evident when heavyweight Congressman and defence minister A K Antony criticized the provision and demanded that 90% consent be made compulsory. His observation in the penultimate meeting of the GoM had indicated not all was fine with the dominant view in the ministerial panel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Land acquisition bill has emerged as another of the flagship legislations with Sonia Gandhi&#039;s imprimatur, a pro-people measure that strategists feel can do what job guarantee scheme and loan waiver did for Congress&#039;s &amp;quot;mother bounty&amp;quot; image in UPA-1.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is felt that freeing the farmers from government&#039;s supreme powers to acquire land for &amp;quot;public purpose&amp;quot;, as mentioned in the existing 1894 law, would shore up party&#039;s credentials among the key social segment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bill is far from the idea of discouraging acquisition, as was originally conceived when agitations rocked the tribal pockets in 2006, and, instead, seeks to incentivize acquisition with better compensation. But the big change may be consent of landowners that is expected to remove arbitrariness of state agencies in taking over land.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Importantly, Special Economic Zones, that constitute a big chunk of acquisition, would be subject to the procedures and compensation of the proposed law, a departure from the present practice that was the root of heartburn among farmers and tribals.
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 20 October, 2012, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Sonia-Gandhi-vetoes-dilution-of-land-acquisition-bill/articleshow/16883905.cms&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;sonia-gandhi-vetoes-dilution-of-land-acquisition-bill-subodh-ghildiyal-17698&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 17698,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 17569
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Sonia Gandhi vetoes dilution of land acquisition bill -Subodh Ghildiyal&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Land Acquisition Bill&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Times of India

Congress leadership has vetoed the dilution of land acquisition bill, saying that 80% landowners have to agree to let the government acquire their land for private projects.

The bottomline has been laid down by UPA chief Sonia Gandhi...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Times of India&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Congress leadership has vetoed the dilution of land acquisition bill, saying that 80% landowners have to agree to let the government acquire their land for private projects.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The bottomline has been laid down by UPA chief Sonia Gandhi barely two days after a ministerial panel headed by Sharad Pawar finalized the draft bill, which says that consent of 67% landowners would suffice for government to acquire land.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The leadership has made it plain that consent threshold could be diluted to 67% only for acquisition for Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects if the ownership of the land stayed with the government.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The message from the Congress brass, conveyed to the PMO, is learnt to have sent government leaders into a tizzy. They settled on a lenient &#039;clause of consent&#039; to heed the concern of the industry that the requirement of the consent of 80% landowners, provided in the original draft of the bill, would render acquisition of land for industry almost impossible.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Congress sources asserted to TOI that there can be no compromise on &amp;quot;not less than 80%&amp;quot; threshold as it flowed Congress&#039;s &amp;quot;political agenda&amp;quot;. The leadership&#039;s insistence is set to trigger a fresh debate when the Union Cabinet takes up the finalized draft for approval. What is particularly discomfiting is that leadership&#039;s demand cannot be ignored even if it has few takers in the government.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The land bill was sent to Pawar-chaired Group of Ministers (GoM) for vetting after a clutch of ministers in-charge of infrastructure portfolios protested against the &amp;quot;stringent&amp;quot; clauses, particularly 80% consent, which they felt would discourage or delay acquisition and hurt private projects. The resistance at a Cabinet meeting in August nudged rural development ministry to dilute the clause seeking &amp;quot;80% consent of landowners and livelihood losers&amp;quot; to &amp;quot;nod of 67% landowners&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;While the GoM this week sealed the 67% clause, Sonia&#039;s intervention seems to lean on the side of vast rural-farmer populace that is hostile to government&#039;s blanket powers to takeover land for undervalued price.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The leadership&#039;s disagreement reflects an unease that 67% consent norm may not fire the imagination of the section it is addressed to. The discomfiture over government role in acquisition for private projects was evident when heavyweight Congressman and defence minister A K Antony criticized the provision and demanded that 90% consent be made compulsory. His observation in the penultimate meeting of the GoM had indicated not all was fine with the dominant view in the ministerial panel.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Land acquisition bill has emerged as another of the flagship legislations with Sonia Gandhi&#039;s imprimatur, a pro-people measure that strategists feel can do what job guarantee scheme and loan waiver did for Congress&#039;s &amp;quot;mother bounty&amp;quot; image in UPA-1.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It is felt that freeing the farmers from government&#039;s supreme powers to acquire land for &amp;quot;public purpose&amp;quot;, as mentioned in the existing 1894 law, would shore up party&#039;s credentials among the key social segment.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The bill is far from the idea of discouraging acquisition, as was originally conceived when agitations rocked the tribal pockets in 2006, and, instead, seeks to incentivize acquisition with better compensation. But the big change may be consent of landowners that is expected to remove arbitrariness of state agencies in taking over land.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Importantly, Special Economic Zones, that constitute a big chunk of acquisition, would be subject to the procedures and compensation of the proposed law, a departure from the present practice that was the root of heartburn among farmers and tribals.&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/sonia-gandhi-vetoes-dilution-of-land-acquisition-bill-subodh-ghildiyal-17698.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Sonia Gandhi vetoes dilution of land acquisition bill -Subodh Ghildiyal | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Times of India

Congress leadership has vetoed the dilution of land acquisition bill, saying that 80% landowners have to agree to let the government acquire their land for private projects.

The bottomline has been laid down by UPA chief Sonia Gandhi..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Sonia Gandhi vetoes dilution of land acquisition bill -Subodh Ghildiyal</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-The Times of India<br /><br />Congress leadership has vetoed the dilution of land acquisition bill, saying that 80% landowners have to agree to let the government acquire their land for private projects.<br /><br />The bottomline has been laid down by UPA chief Sonia Gandhi barely two days after a ministerial panel headed by Sharad Pawar finalized the draft bill, which says that consent of 67% landowners would suffice for government to acquire land.<br /><br />The leadership has made it plain that consent threshold could be diluted to 67% only for acquisition for Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects if the ownership of the land stayed with the government.<br /><br />The message from the Congress brass, conveyed to the PMO, is learnt to have sent government leaders into a tizzy. They settled on a lenient 'clause of consent' to heed the concern of the industry that the requirement of the consent of 80% landowners, provided in the original draft of the bill, would render acquisition of land for industry almost impossible.<br /><br />Congress sources asserted to TOI that there can be no compromise on &quot;not less than 80%&quot; threshold as it flowed Congress's &quot;political agenda&quot;. The leadership's insistence is set to trigger a fresh debate when the Union Cabinet takes up the finalized draft for approval. What is particularly discomfiting is that leadership's demand cannot be ignored even if it has few takers in the government.<br /><br />The land bill was sent to Pawar-chaired Group of Ministers (GoM) for vetting after a clutch of ministers in-charge of infrastructure portfolios protested against the &quot;stringent&quot; clauses, particularly 80% consent, which they felt would discourage or delay acquisition and hurt private projects. The resistance at a Cabinet meeting in August nudged rural development ministry to dilute the clause seeking &quot;80% consent of landowners and livelihood losers&quot; to &quot;nod of 67% landowners&quot;.<br /><br />While the GoM this week sealed the 67% clause, Sonia's intervention seems to lean on the side of vast rural-farmer populace that is hostile to government's blanket powers to takeover land for undervalued price.<br /><br />The leadership's disagreement reflects an unease that 67% consent norm may not fire the imagination of the section it is addressed to. The discomfiture over government role in acquisition for private projects was evident when heavyweight Congressman and defence minister A K Antony criticized the provision and demanded that 90% consent be made compulsory. His observation in the penultimate meeting of the GoM had indicated not all was fine with the dominant view in the ministerial panel.<br /><br />Land acquisition bill has emerged as another of the flagship legislations with Sonia Gandhi's imprimatur, a pro-people measure that strategists feel can do what job guarantee scheme and loan waiver did for Congress's &quot;mother bounty&quot; image in UPA-1.<br /><br />It is felt that freeing the farmers from government's supreme powers to acquire land for &quot;public purpose&quot;, as mentioned in the existing 1894 law, would shore up party's credentials among the key social segment.<br /><br />The bill is far from the idea of discouraging acquisition, as was originally conceived when agitations rocked the tribal pockets in 2006, and, instead, seeks to incentivize acquisition with better compensation. But the big change may be consent of landowners that is expected to remove arbitrariness of state agencies in taking over land.<br /><br />Importantly, Special Economic Zones, that constitute a big chunk of acquisition, would be subject to the procedures and compensation of the proposed law, a departure from the present practice that was the root of heartburn among farmers and tribals.</div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$cookies = []
$values = [
	(int) 0 => 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
]
$name = 'Content-Type'
$first = true
$value = 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitHeaders() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 55
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

<head>

    <link rel="canonical" href="<?php echo Configure::read('SITE_URL'); ?><?php echo $urlPrefix;?><?php echo $article_current->category->slug; ?>/<?php echo $article_current->seo_url; ?>.html"/>

    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>

$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp'
$dataForView = [
	'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		'id' => (int) 17569,
		'title' => 'Sonia Gandhi vetoes dilution of land acquisition bill -Subodh Ghildiyal',
		'subheading' => '',
		'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Times of India<br />
<br />
Congress leadership has vetoed the dilution of land acquisition bill, saying that 80% landowners have to agree to let the government acquire their land for private projects.<br />
<br />
The bottomline has been laid down by UPA chief Sonia Gandhi barely two days after a ministerial panel headed by Sharad Pawar finalized the draft bill, which says that consent of 67% landowners would suffice for government to acquire land.<br />
<br />
The leadership has made it plain that consent threshold could be diluted to 67% only for acquisition for Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects if the ownership of the land stayed with the government.<br />
<br />
The message from the Congress brass, conveyed to the PMO, is learnt to have sent government leaders into a tizzy. They settled on a lenient 'clause of consent' to heed the concern of the industry that the requirement of the consent of 80% landowners, provided in the original draft of the bill, would render acquisition of land for industry almost impossible.<br />
<br />
Congress sources asserted to TOI that there can be no compromise on &quot;not less than 80%&quot; threshold as it flowed Congress's &quot;political agenda&quot;. The leadership's insistence is set to trigger a fresh debate when the Union Cabinet takes up the finalized draft for approval. What is particularly discomfiting is that leadership's demand cannot be ignored even if it has few takers in the government.<br />
<br />
The land bill was sent to Pawar-chaired Group of Ministers (GoM) for vetting after a clutch of ministers in-charge of infrastructure portfolios protested against the &quot;stringent&quot; clauses, particularly 80% consent, which they felt would discourage or delay acquisition and hurt private projects. The resistance at a Cabinet meeting in August nudged rural development ministry to dilute the clause seeking &quot;80% consent of landowners and livelihood losers&quot; to &quot;nod of 67% landowners&quot;.<br />
<br />
While the GoM this week sealed the 67% clause, Sonia's intervention seems to lean on the side of vast rural-farmer populace that is hostile to government's blanket powers to takeover land for undervalued price.<br />
<br />
The leadership's disagreement reflects an unease that 67% consent norm may not fire the imagination of the section it is addressed to. The discomfiture over government role in acquisition for private projects was evident when heavyweight Congressman and defence minister A K Antony criticized the provision and demanded that 90% consent be made compulsory. His observation in the penultimate meeting of the GoM had indicated not all was fine with the dominant view in the ministerial panel.<br />
<br />
Land acquisition bill has emerged as another of the flagship legislations with Sonia Gandhi's imprimatur, a pro-people measure that strategists feel can do what job guarantee scheme and loan waiver did for Congress's &quot;mother bounty&quot; image in UPA-1.<br />
<br />
It is felt that freeing the farmers from government's supreme powers to acquire land for &quot;public purpose&quot;, as mentioned in the existing 1894 law, would shore up party's credentials among the key social segment.<br />
<br />
The bill is far from the idea of discouraging acquisition, as was originally conceived when agitations rocked the tribal pockets in 2006, and, instead, seeks to incentivize acquisition with better compensation. But the big change may be consent of landowners that is expected to remove arbitrariness of state agencies in taking over land.<br />
<br />
Importantly, Special Economic Zones, that constitute a big chunk of acquisition, would be subject to the procedures and compensation of the proposed law, a departure from the present practice that was the root of heartburn among farmers and tribals.
</div>',
		'credit_writer' => 'The Times of India, 20 October, 2012, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Sonia-Gandhi-vetoes-dilution-of-land-acquisition-bill/articleshow/16883905.cms',
		'article_img' => '',
		'article_img_thumb' => '',
		'status' => (int) 1,
		'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
		'lang' => 'EN',
		'category_id' => (int) 16,
		'tag_keyword' => '',
		'seo_url' => 'sonia-gandhi-vetoes-dilution-of-land-acquisition-bill-subodh-ghildiyal-17698',
		'meta_title' => null,
		'meta_keywords' => null,
		'meta_description' => null,
		'noindex' => (int) 0,
		'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		'most_visit_section_id' => null,
		'article_big_img' => null,
		'liveid' => (int) 17698,
		'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'edate' => '',
		'tags' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		'[new]' => false,
		'[accessible]' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[hasErrors]' => false,
		'[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[repository]' => 'Articles'
	
	},
	'articleid' => (int) 17569,
	'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Sonia Gandhi vetoes dilution of land acquisition bill -Subodh Ghildiyal',
	'metaKeywords' => 'Land Acquisition Bill',
	'metaDesc' => '
-The Times of India

Congress leadership has vetoed the dilution of land acquisition bill, saying that 80% landowners have to agree to let the government acquire their land for private projects.

The bottomline has been laid down by UPA chief Sonia Gandhi...',
	'disp' => '<div align="justify">-The Times of India<br /><br />Congress leadership has vetoed the dilution of land acquisition bill, saying that 80% landowners have to agree to let the government acquire their land for private projects.<br /><br />The bottomline has been laid down by UPA chief Sonia Gandhi barely two days after a ministerial panel headed by Sharad Pawar finalized the draft bill, which says that consent of 67% landowners would suffice for government to acquire land.<br /><br />The leadership has made it plain that consent threshold could be diluted to 67% only for acquisition for Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects if the ownership of the land stayed with the government.<br /><br />The message from the Congress brass, conveyed to the PMO, is learnt to have sent government leaders into a tizzy. They settled on a lenient 'clause of consent' to heed the concern of the industry that the requirement of the consent of 80% landowners, provided in the original draft of the bill, would render acquisition of land for industry almost impossible.<br /><br />Congress sources asserted to TOI that there can be no compromise on &quot;not less than 80%&quot; threshold as it flowed Congress's &quot;political agenda&quot;. The leadership's insistence is set to trigger a fresh debate when the Union Cabinet takes up the finalized draft for approval. What is particularly discomfiting is that leadership's demand cannot be ignored even if it has few takers in the government.<br /><br />The land bill was sent to Pawar-chaired Group of Ministers (GoM) for vetting after a clutch of ministers in-charge of infrastructure portfolios protested against the &quot;stringent&quot; clauses, particularly 80% consent, which they felt would discourage or delay acquisition and hurt private projects. The resistance at a Cabinet meeting in August nudged rural development ministry to dilute the clause seeking &quot;80% consent of landowners and livelihood losers&quot; to &quot;nod of 67% landowners&quot;.<br /><br />While the GoM this week sealed the 67% clause, Sonia's intervention seems to lean on the side of vast rural-farmer populace that is hostile to government's blanket powers to takeover land for undervalued price.<br /><br />The leadership's disagreement reflects an unease that 67% consent norm may not fire the imagination of the section it is addressed to. The discomfiture over government role in acquisition for private projects was evident when heavyweight Congressman and defence minister A K Antony criticized the provision and demanded that 90% consent be made compulsory. His observation in the penultimate meeting of the GoM had indicated not all was fine with the dominant view in the ministerial panel.<br /><br />Land acquisition bill has emerged as another of the flagship legislations with Sonia Gandhi's imprimatur, a pro-people measure that strategists feel can do what job guarantee scheme and loan waiver did for Congress's &quot;mother bounty&quot; image in UPA-1.<br /><br />It is felt that freeing the farmers from government's supreme powers to acquire land for &quot;public purpose&quot;, as mentioned in the existing 1894 law, would shore up party's credentials among the key social segment.<br /><br />The bill is far from the idea of discouraging acquisition, as was originally conceived when agitations rocked the tribal pockets in 2006, and, instead, seeks to incentivize acquisition with better compensation. But the big change may be consent of landowners that is expected to remove arbitrariness of state agencies in taking over land.<br /><br />Importantly, Special Economic Zones, that constitute a big chunk of acquisition, would be subject to the procedures and compensation of the proposed law, a departure from the present practice that was the root of heartburn among farmers and tribals.</div>',
	'lang' => 'English',
	'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/',
	'site_title' => 'im4change',
	'adminprix' => 'admin'
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	'id' => (int) 17569,
	'title' => 'Sonia Gandhi vetoes dilution of land acquisition bill -Subodh Ghildiyal',
	'subheading' => '',
	'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Times of India<br />
<br />
Congress leadership has vetoed the dilution of land acquisition bill, saying that 80% landowners have to agree to let the government acquire their land for private projects.<br />
<br />
The bottomline has been laid down by UPA chief Sonia Gandhi barely two days after a ministerial panel headed by Sharad Pawar finalized the draft bill, which says that consent of 67% landowners would suffice for government to acquire land.<br />
<br />
The leadership has made it plain that consent threshold could be diluted to 67% only for acquisition for Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects if the ownership of the land stayed with the government.<br />
<br />
The message from the Congress brass, conveyed to the PMO, is learnt to have sent government leaders into a tizzy. They settled on a lenient 'clause of consent' to heed the concern of the industry that the requirement of the consent of 80% landowners, provided in the original draft of the bill, would render acquisition of land for industry almost impossible.<br />
<br />
Congress sources asserted to TOI that there can be no compromise on &quot;not less than 80%&quot; threshold as it flowed Congress's &quot;political agenda&quot;. The leadership's insistence is set to trigger a fresh debate when the Union Cabinet takes up the finalized draft for approval. What is particularly discomfiting is that leadership's demand cannot be ignored even if it has few takers in the government.<br />
<br />
The land bill was sent to Pawar-chaired Group of Ministers (GoM) for vetting after a clutch of ministers in-charge of infrastructure portfolios protested against the &quot;stringent&quot; clauses, particularly 80% consent, which they felt would discourage or delay acquisition and hurt private projects. The resistance at a Cabinet meeting in August nudged rural development ministry to dilute the clause seeking &quot;80% consent of landowners and livelihood losers&quot; to &quot;nod of 67% landowners&quot;.<br />
<br />
While the GoM this week sealed the 67% clause, Sonia's intervention seems to lean on the side of vast rural-farmer populace that is hostile to government's blanket powers to takeover land for undervalued price.<br />
<br />
The leadership's disagreement reflects an unease that 67% consent norm may not fire the imagination of the section it is addressed to. The discomfiture over government role in acquisition for private projects was evident when heavyweight Congressman and defence minister A K Antony criticized the provision and demanded that 90% consent be made compulsory. His observation in the penultimate meeting of the GoM had indicated not all was fine with the dominant view in the ministerial panel.<br />
<br />
Land acquisition bill has emerged as another of the flagship legislations with Sonia Gandhi's imprimatur, a pro-people measure that strategists feel can do what job guarantee scheme and loan waiver did for Congress's &quot;mother bounty&quot; image in UPA-1.<br />
<br />
It is felt that freeing the farmers from government's supreme powers to acquire land for &quot;public purpose&quot;, as mentioned in the existing 1894 law, would shore up party's credentials among the key social segment.<br />
<br />
The bill is far from the idea of discouraging acquisition, as was originally conceived when agitations rocked the tribal pockets in 2006, and, instead, seeks to incentivize acquisition with better compensation. But the big change may be consent of landowners that is expected to remove arbitrariness of state agencies in taking over land.<br />
<br />
Importantly, Special Economic Zones, that constitute a big chunk of acquisition, would be subject to the procedures and compensation of the proposed law, a departure from the present practice that was the root of heartburn among farmers and tribals.
</div>',
	'credit_writer' => 'The Times of India, 20 October, 2012, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Sonia-Gandhi-vetoes-dilution-of-land-acquisition-bill/articleshow/16883905.cms',
	'article_img' => '',
	'article_img_thumb' => '',
	'status' => (int) 1,
	'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
	'lang' => 'EN',
	'category_id' => (int) 16,
	'tag_keyword' => '',
	'seo_url' => 'sonia-gandhi-vetoes-dilution-of-land-acquisition-bill-subodh-ghildiyal-17698',
	'meta_title' => null,
	'meta_keywords' => null,
	'meta_description' => null,
	'noindex' => (int) 0,
	'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	'most_visit_section_id' => null,
	'article_big_img' => null,
	'liveid' => (int) 17698,
	'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'edate' => '',
	'tags' => [
		(int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	'[new]' => false,
	'[accessible]' => [
		'*' => true,
		'id' => false
	],
	'[dirty]' => [],
	'[original]' => [],
	'[virtual]' => [],
	'[hasErrors]' => false,
	'[errors]' => [],
	'[invalid]' => [],
	'[repository]' => 'Articles'

}
$articleid = (int) 17569
$metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Sonia Gandhi vetoes dilution of land acquisition bill -Subodh Ghildiyal'
$metaKeywords = 'Land Acquisition Bill'
$metaDesc = '
-The Times of India

Congress leadership has vetoed the dilution of land acquisition bill, saying that 80% landowners have to agree to let the government acquire their land for private projects.

The bottomline has been laid down by UPA chief Sonia Gandhi...'
$disp = '<div align="justify">-The Times of India<br /><br />Congress leadership has vetoed the dilution of land acquisition bill, saying that 80% landowners have to agree to let the government acquire their land for private projects.<br /><br />The bottomline has been laid down by UPA chief Sonia Gandhi barely two days after a ministerial panel headed by Sharad Pawar finalized the draft bill, which says that consent of 67% landowners would suffice for government to acquire land.<br /><br />The leadership has made it plain that consent threshold could be diluted to 67% only for acquisition for Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects if the ownership of the land stayed with the government.<br /><br />The message from the Congress brass, conveyed to the PMO, is learnt to have sent government leaders into a tizzy. They settled on a lenient 'clause of consent' to heed the concern of the industry that the requirement of the consent of 80% landowners, provided in the original draft of the bill, would render acquisition of land for industry almost impossible.<br /><br />Congress sources asserted to TOI that there can be no compromise on &quot;not less than 80%&quot; threshold as it flowed Congress's &quot;political agenda&quot;. The leadership's insistence is set to trigger a fresh debate when the Union Cabinet takes up the finalized draft for approval. What is particularly discomfiting is that leadership's demand cannot be ignored even if it has few takers in the government.<br /><br />The land bill was sent to Pawar-chaired Group of Ministers (GoM) for vetting after a clutch of ministers in-charge of infrastructure portfolios protested against the &quot;stringent&quot; clauses, particularly 80% consent, which they felt would discourage or delay acquisition and hurt private projects. The resistance at a Cabinet meeting in August nudged rural development ministry to dilute the clause seeking &quot;80% consent of landowners and livelihood losers&quot; to &quot;nod of 67% landowners&quot;.<br /><br />While the GoM this week sealed the 67% clause, Sonia's intervention seems to lean on the side of vast rural-farmer populace that is hostile to government's blanket powers to takeover land for undervalued price.<br /><br />The leadership's disagreement reflects an unease that 67% consent norm may not fire the imagination of the section it is addressed to. The discomfiture over government role in acquisition for private projects was evident when heavyweight Congressman and defence minister A K Antony criticized the provision and demanded that 90% consent be made compulsory. His observation in the penultimate meeting of the GoM had indicated not all was fine with the dominant view in the ministerial panel.<br /><br />Land acquisition bill has emerged as another of the flagship legislations with Sonia Gandhi's imprimatur, a pro-people measure that strategists feel can do what job guarantee scheme and loan waiver did for Congress's &quot;mother bounty&quot; image in UPA-1.<br /><br />It is felt that freeing the farmers from government's supreme powers to acquire land for &quot;public purpose&quot;, as mentioned in the existing 1894 law, would shore up party's credentials among the key social segment.<br /><br />The bill is far from the idea of discouraging acquisition, as was originally conceived when agitations rocked the tribal pockets in 2006, and, instead, seeks to incentivize acquisition with better compensation. But the big change may be consent of landowners that is expected to remove arbitrariness of state agencies in taking over land.<br /><br />Importantly, Special Economic Zones, that constitute a big chunk of acquisition, would be subject to the procedures and compensation of the proposed law, a departure from the present practice that was the root of heartburn among farmers and tribals.</div>'
$lang = 'English'
$SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/'
$site_title = 'im4change'
$adminprix = 'admin'

include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51

Sonia Gandhi vetoes dilution of land acquisition bill -Subodh Ghildiyal

-The Times of India Congress leadership has vetoed the dilution of land acquisition bill, saying that 80% landowners have to agree to let the government acquire their land for private projects. The bottomline has been laid down by UPA chief Sonia Gandhi barely two days after a ministerial panel headed by Sharad Pawar finalized the draft bill, which says that consent of 67% landowners would suffice for government to acquire land. The leadership has made it plain that consent threshold could be diluted to 67% only for acquisition for Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects if the ownership of the land stayed with the government. The message from the Congress brass, conveyed to the PMO, is learnt to have sent government leaders into a tizzy. They settled on a lenient 'clause of consent' to heed the concern of the industry that the requirement of the consent of 80% landowners, provided in the original draft of the bill, would render acquisition of land for industry almost impossible. Congress sources asserted to TOI that there can be no compromise on "not less than 80%" threshold as it flowed Congress's "political agenda". The leadership's insistence is set to trigger a fresh debate when the Union Cabinet takes up the finalized draft for approval. What is particularly discomfiting is that leadership's demand cannot be ignored even if it has few takers in the government. The land bill was sent to Pawar-chaired Group of Ministers (GoM) for vetting after a clutch of ministers in-charge of infrastructure portfolios protested against the "stringent" clauses, particularly 80% consent, which they felt would discourage or delay acquisition and hurt private projects. The resistance at a Cabinet meeting in August nudged rural development ministry to dilute the clause seeking "80% consent of landowners and livelihood losers" to "nod of 67% landowners". While the GoM this week sealed the 67% clause, Sonia's intervention seems to lean on the side of vast rural-farmer populace that is hostile to government's blanket powers to takeover land for undervalued price. The leadership's disagreement reflects an unease that 67% consent norm may not fire the imagination of the section it is addressed to. The discomfiture over government role in acquisition for private projects was evident when heavyweight Congressman and defence minister A K Antony criticized the provision and demanded that 90% consent be made compulsory. His observation in the penultimate meeting of the GoM had indicated not all was fine with the dominant view in the ministerial panel. Land acquisition bill has emerged as another of the flagship legislations with Sonia Gandhi's imprimatur, a pro-people measure that strategists feel can do what job guarantee scheme and loan waiver did for Congress's "mother bounty" image in UPA-1. It is felt that freeing the farmers from government's supreme powers to acquire land for "public purpose", as mentioned in the existing 1894 law, would shore up party's credentials among the key social segment. The bill is far from the idea of discouraging acquisition, as was originally conceived when agitations rocked the tribal pockets in 2006, and, instead, seeks to incentivize acquisition with better compensation. But the big change may be consent of landowners that is expected to remove arbitrariness of state agencies in taking over land. Importantly, Special Economic Zones, that constitute a big chunk of acquisition, would be subject to the procedures and compensation of the proposed law, a departure from the present practice that was the root of heartburn among farmers and tribals.