Century old land bill of 1894 was
amended by UPA govt in 2013. It came into the action from Jan 2014. The new act
was named as Land Acquisition, rehabilitation and resettlement act (2013). This
act was pro- farmer and pro industrial development. Old land bill was providing
monetary compensation of 1.3 times the actual land cost. Whereas LARR Act
provides monetary compensation of 4 times the actual market cost in rural area
and 2 times the actual market cost in urban area to the landowners. On top of
it, it ensures rehabilitation and resettlement of the affected people. It also studies
social impact on affected landowners.
The main fact in LARR act which I want to emphasize is it need compulsory
consent from 80% landowners to handover the land to private players and 70%
consent for PPP projects.
I think LARR Act ensures
inclusive growth where industrialists and farmers both are concerned along with
the national development. But LARR Act removed local government bodies like
state government and panchayati Raj from the purview of bill, saying land deals
are not concern of local bodies. During 2007 and 2009, for the construction of
Yamuna Expressway, 2800 crore rupees had been spent on land. Land was being
acquired with whooping rate of average 15 lakh per acre. However at
International arena, as per The Financial Times, France paid average 1.09 lakhs
per acre and as per US department of agriculture, US paid average 96 K per acre
of land.
Reuters has reported that in
2014, LARR act is a barrier to projects worth $300 bn. Hence due to continuous
lobbying by India Inc. on 31 Dec 2014, NDA government cleared an ordinance to
amend LARR act by using executive powers. Ordinance defines that there would be
same compensation as per LARR act but consent clause will be removed for
sectors like defence and rural electrification, security, power and affordable
housing. Ordinance also ensures rehabilitation and resettlement. Government
will not require any consent from landowners and social impact won’t be studied
for these sectors. Hence Land bill ordinance= LARR Act – (consent of landowners
+ social impact study).
LARR act ensures that if land is
not utilised for five years, it will be returned to landowners but there is no
such provision in land ordinance.
I think there should be mandatory
consent because one can be removed from his home without his permission is
against right to property act. Consider that you have been told to vacate the
home (against your wish) as some industrialist is going to destruct it and will
open shopping center over there. Although you will get 4 folds price of your
home, one shop in shopping center as a part of resettlement, might be a new
apartment for rehabilitation. But all this cannot make you satisfied as
compared to your father’s old home (As per Amitabh Bacchan’s Binani cement
Adverisement). Another example, if you have some fertile land where you are
cropping every year, tomorrow industrialist came and asks you to vacate it as
they want to construct vegetable market building at that place. So with this
new bill they can start construction without your will.
I think there is no need of any
amendment in LARR act of 2013 because it is more pro farmers than that of
industrialists. If $300 bn projects are on hold, let them on hold till all
landowners are agreed to sell their land which will ensure inclusive growth of
India. In West Bengal communist led left government who ruled Bengal for almost
34 years adopted liberalisation policy and changed its pro farmers policy to
capitalist path of industrial development which at micro level endangered food
security of small and marginal farmers who formed vote bank of left front
government. Eventually left government collapsed but Mamata Banarjee took over.
Alternative to the LARR act can
be renting land to the industries for specific period with increasing rate of
rent. This will ensure that landowner will get his land with same grace and
industry will not need more initial set up charges.
