In the wake of powerful struggles against SEZs, corporate land grab and displacements, the demand for scrapping of the colonial Land Acquisition Act (LAA), 1894 and for a national policy on resettlement and rehabilitation have emerged. In the recent Lok Sabha polls, the defeat of pro-land-grab forces at Singur, Nandigram and Raigad represent a powerful political assertion of peasantry against displacement in the name of corporate-led ‘development’. The Congress-led Government, keen proponent of land grab, which passed the SEZ Act in its last tenure, has been forced to strike a pro-peasant posture. It has proposed an amendment of the LAA and a new Resettlement and Rehabilitation Bill (R&R), 2007. In reality however, these proposed legislations are designed to garb ongoing the land grab drive in greater legitimacy rather than put an end to it.

LAA Amendment Bill: Eyewash

One of the most contested aspects of the LAA, 1894 is the definition of “public purpose” as a ground for land acquisition. This ‘public purpose’ clause has been used time and again to justify everything from big dams to slum clearance to Nano plants – in the process to deprive millions of tribals, rural and urban poor, of their land, livelihood and homes.

The existing act defines public purpose as:

(i) the provision of village-sites, or the extension, planned development or improvement of existing village-sites;

(ii) the provision of land for town or rural planning;

(iii) the provision of land for planned development of land from public funds in pursuance of any scheme or policy of Government and subsequent disposal thereof in whole or in part by lease, assignment or outright sale with the object of securing further development as planned;

(iv) the provision of land for a corporation owned or controlled by the State;

(v) the provision of land for residential purposes to the poor or landless or to persons residing in areas affected by natural calamities, or to persons displaced or affected by reason of the implementation of any scheme undertaken by Government, any local authority or a corporation owned or controlled by the State;

(vi) the provision of land for carrying out any educational, housing, health or slum clearance scheme sponsored by Government …;

(vii) the provision of land for any other scheme of development sponsored by Government or with the prior approval of the appropriate Government, by a local authority;

(viii) the provision of any premises or building for locating a public office, but does not include acquisition of land for companies

The proposed amendments define ‘public purpose’ as:

(i) the provision of land for strategic purposes relating to naval, military and air force works or any other work vital to the State;

(ii) the provision of land for infrastructure projects of the appropriate Government, where the benefits accrue to the general public; and

(iii) the provision of land for any other purpose useful to the general public, for which land has been purchased by a person under lawful contract to the extent of seventy per cent but the remaining thirty per cent of the total area of land required for the project as yet to be required.’.

Explanation.—The word “person” shall include any company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not.”

‘Infrastructure’ is identified as,—

(i) any project relating to generation, transmission or supply of electricity;

(ii) construction of roads, highways, bridges, airports, ports, rail systems or mining activities;

(iii) water supply project, irrigation project, sanitation and sewerage system; or

(iv) any other public facility as may be notified in this regard by the Central Government in the Official Gazette.’.

If one takes a careful look at the new definition of ‘public purpose’ (Section 3(f)), we can see that explanation for the term ‘person’ is nothing but carefully crafted shorthand for ‘corporation’ or ‘company.’ Further, the clause relating to infrastructure projects is also misleading. All types of infrastructural projects including mining, these days are being undertaken, for huge profits, by large private enterprises on build-operate-transfer basis. When the government itself says that land can be acquired for such infrastructural purposes by a ‘person’, which includes “any company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not”, by invoking the ‘public purpose’ clause, there is a clear and mischievous conflation of public and private purpose.

Provisions in the 1894 Act, such as acquiring land “for residential purposes (for) the poor or landless or to persons residing in areas affected by natural calamities….”, or the provision of land (acquisition) for carrying out any educational, housing, health or slum clearance scheme sponsored by Government” in a very limited sense could have resulted in welfare measures for the poor. Not discounting the fact that the history of land acquisition in India has a different story to narrate, yet a legal provision like this provided ground for marginalized sections to demand such welfare measures. However, all these provisions have been significantly omitted from the proposed Amendment Bill.

It can be argued that the Government intends all such welfare provisions like education, health, housing, etc to be covered by clause (iii) of Section 3(f) whereby land is to be acquired “for any other purpose useful to the general public, for which land has been purchased by a person under lawful contract to the extent of seventy per cent…” But this clause allows Government to acquire 30% of land only to complement land purchased by private parties; there is no provision for government, municipalities etc… to acquire land for such welfare measures. This means that the private sector will control such welfare activities – and it may also be a euphemism for land acquired for real estate purposes.

The LAA has retained the ‘urgency clause’ whereby land can be acquired within 15 days of notification if a situation of urgency arises. There is provision for acquisition of land by the Collector, even within 48 hours of notification. The circumstances in which such acquisition can be taken up are as follows:

“Whenever, owing to any sudden change in the channel of any navigable river or other unforeseen emergency, it becomes necessary for any Railway Administration to acquire the immediate possession of any land for the maintenance of their traffic or for the purpose of making thereon a river-side or ghat station, or of providing convenient connection with or accesses to any such station, or the appropriate Government considers it necessary to acquire the immediate possession of any land for the purpose of maintaining any structure or system pertaining to irrigation, water supply, drainage, road communication or electricity…”

Many of these purposes find a mention as infrastructural projects for which land can be acquired invoking the public purpose provision. What, then, is the difference between ordinary ‘public purpose’ acquisitions and ‘urgency’ acquisitions? The proposed amendment bill is silent on whether Social Impact Assessment/Environmental Impact Assessment are to be waived in urgent circumstances. This silence, needless to say, provides for use of the urgency clause to bypass any impact assessment requirements. It is evident that the Government will use this urgency clause to sponsor corporate land grab in the name of infrastructural development.

The principle of ‘eminent domain’ has been retained in the proposed Amendment bill. According to this principle the State possesses all property within its boundaries, and has power to appropriate private property for a ‘public purpose’. In a class society where the State acts at the behest of powerful sections, this principle is hardly ever used in the interests of land reform or other measures of democratisation – rather only in the interests of land grab and summary eviction of the poor.

R&R: Belied by Strategic Ifs and Buts

The draft Resettlement and Rehabilitation Bill too belies the purpose conveyed by its name. The stated objective of this Bill is that it seeks to “minimise large scale displacement as far as possible”. How to minimise unnecessary displacement? Who will decide when displacement is necessary? The only viable and democratic mechanism would be to make prior informed consent of affected communities mandatory for any land acquisition. The R&R Bill has no such provision.
Social movements have for long argued that “R&R” which amounts merely to compensation money or housing is meaningless. The principle of ‘land for land’ and alternative livelihood, ensuring that the affected are “better off” than before has been upheld by the Supreme Court.

The R&R Bill does not incorporate the “better off” provision. It provides for allotment of cultivable land in exchange for land acquired, but only “if Government land is available in the resettlement area.” As for the provision of ‘preference in employment,’ the Bill stipulates that this can be provided “as far as possible.” The Bill’s provisions for effective rehabilitation and resettlement are undercut by such strategic ifs and buts.

The R&R Bill makes Social Impact Assessment a prerequisite for undertaking a new project or expansion of an existing project. However the catch lies in the qualification which follows this mandatory requirement. It says SIA has to be conducted for projects which involve involuntary displacement of 400 or more families enmasse in the plains and 200 or more in the hilly regions. This arbitrary numerical conditionality is yet another strategic gap in the ‘safety net’ which will allow most oustees to fall through.

Also this Bill must also be read in conjunction with Section 3(f)(3) of the LAA Amendment Bill. In cases where a private person (corporation) has purchased 70% of the land required for a project, and Government has acquired only a complementary 30%, those ousted from 70% of the land will not be covered by the R&R Bill. If we put two and two together we realize that oustees of most projects in India will not qualify for R&R if this Bill is passed!

The Bill talks of agricultural labourers, marginal farmers and other occupational groups who lose their sources of livelihood but have no land titles. Until now these people were not even considered for resettlement. But clearly, the five year residential requirement as eligibility for being considered for rehabilitation again ends up excluding many. The residential requirement should be lowered considering the transient nature of their employment.

The LAA Amendment Bill and the R&R Bill in its present form are a far cry from protecting peasants and the poor or from land grab or ensuring the rights of oustees. We must continue the struggle for scrapping of the SEZ Act 2005 and the colonial LAA Act, and demand that fresh laws for land acquisition and R&R be drawn up through comprehensive consultation with social movements: laws that will ensure that the affected public have a say in defining ‘public purpose’, and that in cases where land acquisition is agreed upon, effective alternate land, housing and livelihood are guaranteed.