Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 150
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 151
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
LATEST NEWS UPDATES | The new land acquisition law must seek to reduce market distortions and segmentation by Bibek Debroy

The new land acquisition law must seek to reduce market distortions and segmentation by Bibek Debroy

Share this article Share this article
published Published on Jul 1, 2011   modified Modified on Jul 1, 2011

Land is contentious. With urbanisation and demand for non-agricultural use, coupled with lack of employment and skills for those in small-holder and subsistence-level agriculture, this is understandable. In western Europe, especially in Britain, and more especially in England, land markets were freed up before the Industrial Revolution and access to education and skills became more broad-based. We haven't introduced reforms that enable people to move out of agriculture, or diversify within agriculture.

Nor are there marketable skills. Much of the controversy over land is actually a skills problem. That doesn't mean status quo of small-holder and subsistence-level agriculture is desirable. Had that rural Arcadia existed, poverty levels would have been significantly lower. Given low agricultural productivity levels, nor does diversion of land to non-agricultural use mean India will starve.

What's this argument about fertile and irrigated agricultural land not being available for non-agricultural use? Some land is valuable, others are not. Had we done a better job of irrigation, much more of agricultural land would have become valuable. Whether it is for agriculture or whether it is for non-agricultural use, everyone will want what is more valuable and not what is less valuable.

There is a famous Oscar Wilde quote, to the effect that a cynic is one who knows the price of everything and value of nothing. This is from Lady Windermere's Fan and is Lord Darlington speaking, replying to Cecil Graham's question. Usually, we don't remember Cecil Graham's response. "And a sentimentalist, my dear Darlington, is a man who sees an absurd value in everything, and doesn't know the market price of any single thing." How do we know value of any object? From prices in the market, and forces of demand and supply, assuming we allow markets to operate.

We had two Bills floating around, an amendment to Land Acquisition Act (LAA) of 1894 and a Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) Bill (RRB). Both lapsed and have to be placed before Parliament again. From NAC's ( National Advisory Council )) website, we learn there are differing views within NAC on what revamped LAA should contain. However, NAC agrees that the two Bills should not be separated and should be consolidated. Media reports sugge ST such a consolidated Bill will now be prepared by rural development ministry.

There are cogent reasons for unification. However, is there a conceptual difference between "compensation" under LAA and R&R? Common sense suggests there ought to be. Why is the word "acquisition" used in LAA? Its use suggests land is forcibly being acquired; there is coercion. It should not apply at all to voluntary transfer between two willing parties, provided there is no unfairness in the contract.

Private markets function and if there is a problem with the functioning of private markets, the State steps in and acquires land, for public or private use. Hence, there is compensation. As a legal principle, I can only compensate someone who has some kind of right. Contrast this with R&R. The R&R Bill not only talks about those who have rights (tenure-holder, tenant, lessee, owner), but also those who don't possess rights but whose livelihoods are disrupted.

This is a legitimate social concern and we should have R&R clauses. But that cannot and should not be mixed up with compensation. When we say there are problems with land acquisition, are those problems with acquisition process or with R&R? Perhaps both. However, if we do not have conceptual clarity, we will be sentimentalists.

In several sectors in India, we do not know market price for anything, because markets aren't allowed to function. Land is a good example. A general principle is preventing the functioning of markets is bad idea. Segmenting markets is a bad idea. Creating distortions in markets is a bad idea. Take the 70/30 rule, floating around in LAA and endorsed by NAC. State will acquire land if 70% of land has been acquired through free market principles. The rural/urban distinction is artificial.

While de jure LAA does apply to urban land too, de facto it has come to mean rural land. When there is acquisition, it is rural land that is being acquired. However, there is discretion in conversion to non-agricultural use, which is how the political system makes its money. Thus, converted land has a higher value than non-converted land. High stamp duties, and evasion because the source of income is illegal or because taxes are avoided, reduce price at which sales are registered. For ST land, there are restrictions on its alienation.

This leads to higher demand for general land and lower demand for ST land. Apart from resulting in higher prices for general land, this can be circumvented, either by questioning ownership, or by disguising the sale. We don't have clean titles, cadastral surveys are old. There is no title insurance. Why do companies ask the State to step in? Not only because there may be an unwilling person sitting in the middle who is unwilling to sell, at any price, because titles are unclear. There is no point passing LAA (amendment) and R&R, unless we do something about the Titling Bill too. Tenancy is illegal in some places, driving it underground.

Apart from other problems, this makes it impossible for tenants to establish rights. Land acquisition isn't simultaneous. It is sequential, even now. Land acquired earlier tends to have lower prices, creating issues about sanctity of contract. The 70/30 rule increases this sequential segmentation more. It further distorts and reduces operation of private markets. As sentimentalists, we cannot make recommendations that run counter to economic rationality. We need to reduce distortions and segmentation, not increase them.

The writer is Professor, Centre for Policy Research

The Economic Times, 1 July, 2011, http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opinion/comments-analysis/the-new-land-acquisition-law-must-seek-to-reduce-market-distortions-and-segmentation/articleshow/9058361


Related Articles

 

Write Comments

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

*

Video Archives

Archives

share on Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Feedback
Read Later

Contact Form

Please enter security code
      Close