Analysing the Land Bill, 2015

The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 replaced the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which was a general law relating to acquisition of land for public purposes and also for determining the amount for compensation to be made on account of such acquisition. The 2013 Act addressed the shortcomings of the previous Act by including provisions relating to just and fair compensation and rehabilitation and resettlement for the affected persons and their families. Some of the provisions incorporated under the Act are as follows: i. The definition of “Public Purpose” was restricted to the acquisition of the land for strategic purposes vital to the State and for infrastructure projects where the benefits accrue to the general public. ii. Additional benefits beyond the monetary compensation were provided to families affected adversely by involuntary displacement. iii. A mechanism for careful assessment of the economic disadvantages and the social impact arising out of displacement was discussed. iv. To ensure food security, multi-crop irrigated land had to be acquired only as a last resort measure. v. A scientific method for the calculation of the market value of the land for providing comprehensive compensation to the land owners had been devised. vi. Subsistence allowance, jobs, house, land in case of irrigation projects, transportation allowance and resettlement allowance had been proposed for the land owners. vii. Special benefits for Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. viii. Infrastructural amenities were provided in the resettlement area including schools, health centres, places of worship, fair price shop etc. ix. Unused land had to be transferred to the State Government’s Land Bank after ten years. x. Basic minimum requirement for all displacement projects was to include the Social Impact Assessment Test.
But because of some of the provisions which were making the implementation of the Act difficult, it was felt necessary to bring changes in the Act, while safeguarding the interests of the farmers and affected families in cases of land acquisition. Therefore, in view of urgency, and because of the Parliament not being in session, the President promulgated the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013.
The Ordinance provides the following: i. The words “Private Company” have been replaced with “Private Entity” in the 2013 Act where, a “private entity” is an entity other than a government entity, and could include a proprietorship, partnership, company, corporation, non-profit organisation, or other entity under any other law. ii. Private hospitals and private educational institutions have been included in the definition of ‘public purpose’. iii. In order to expedite the process of land acquisition for strategic and development activities, exemption from “Social Impact Assessment” and “Special Provisions for Safeguarding Food Security” have been proposed in cases of national security or defence of India including preparation for defence and defence production; rural infrastructure including electrification; affordable housing and housing for poor; industrial corridors; infrastructure and social infrastructure projects including projects under public private partnership where the ownership of the land continues to vest with the Government. iv. The provisions relating to the “Companies Act, 1956” have been replaced with the “Companies Act, 2013”. v. In computing the period after which the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 would lapse, will not include the period during which the proceedings for acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction issued by any court or the period specified in the award of a Tribunal for taking possession or such period where possession has been taken but the compensation lying deposited in a Court or in any account maintained for this purpose. vi. The Explanation under Section 46 of the Act, dealing with application of provisions relating to rehabilitation and resettlement in case of land purchased through private negotiations is now proposed to be extended in cases when land is purchased by persons other than the Government, Government Company and Trust or Society aided or controlled by the Government. vii. The Section dealing with Offences by Government Departments is proposed to be modified to bring it in line with existing provisions in other laws. When an offence under this Act is committed by any official of the Government, action would be taken as per Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. viii. Compensation in accordance with the First Schedule and rehabilitation and resettlement specified in the Second and Third Schedules of the Act was sought to be extended to the acquisition under thirteen Acts mentioned in the Fourth Schedule of the Act. ix. The provision of Removal of Difficulties is proposed to be applicable to entire Act rather than ‘Part’ as the word ‘part’ was used in the Act inadvertently. Further, the time period to remove the difficulties is proposed to be extended from two years at present to five years.
Consequently, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) Bill, 2015 was introduced in the Parliament, which replaced the Ordinance. In addition of the above mentioned provisions, the Bill seeks to introduce the following changes: i. The Bill creates five special categories of land use: a. defence, b. rural infrastructure, c. affordable housing, d. industrial corridors, and e. Infrastructure projects including Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects where the central government owns the land. ii. The 2013 Act requires that the consent of 80% of land owners is obtained for private projects and that the consent of 70% of land owners be obtained for PPP projects. The Bill exempts the five categories mentioned above from this provision of the Act. iii. The period after which unutilised land needs to be returned will be: a. five years, or b. Any period specified at the time of setting up the project, whichever is later, unlike the earlier five years cap.

Whether the proposed amendment is against the farmers?
Section 2(2) of the 2013 Act, in its proviso stipulates mandatory consent of at least 70 per cent of land owners for acquiring land for Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects and 80 per cent for acquiring land for private companies.

The proposed Amendment however provides for the removal of the consent clause for acquiring land for five areas: * industrial corridors, * PPP projects, * rural infrastructure, * affordable housing and * Defence.
The mandatory provision for taking the consent of the land owners was added to the Act with the aim of protecting the interests of the land owners (majorly farmers). The farmers are dependent for survival on the land because they earn the major chunk of their income from agriculture. If the only source of their survival is taken away, they would be affected badly and it would add to the problems of their already poverty-stricken life.
The removal of the consent clause for acquiring the land for the above mentioned projects would prove to be against the principles of natural justice and equality as it would not give those who own the land a chance to decide as to what should be done on their land.
Section 4 of the Act provides for a Social Impact Assessment Study to be conducted before acquisition of land by the government for a public purpose. However, the Land Bill, 2015 proposes to remove the need for such a study for the acquisition of the land for the above mentioned five areas.
The Social Impact Assessment Study is conducted to assess the effect of the acquisition of the land on the land owners and those dependent on them. But the removal of this clause shall mean that the land acquisition shall be affected without assessing the ill-effect of the acquisition. This also means that only the land owners shall be compensated and not those affected by the acquisition.
However, because there are two sides of coin, the positive side of the amendment is that it will provide affordable housing to the poor and infrastructure in the rural areas which will be directly beneficial to the farmers.
So overall, the Land Bill, 2015 is neither anti-farmers nor pro-farmers.

What are the contentions of the opposition?
The parties in the opposition contend that the Land Bill, 2015 is “anti-farmer and pro-corporate”.
The debate regarding the Bill is on the following points:
1. Removal of ‘consent’ clause and Social Impact Assessment in acquisition of land for certain purposes
The Bill introduces five new classes of land use, namely, defence, rural infrastructure, affordable housing, industrial corridors and infrastructure including public-private partnerships, but excluding private schools and hospitals. It seeks to remove the consent of seventy percent of the land owners that was required prior to acquisition under the original 2013 Act in the aforesaid sectors, whilst also eliminating the need for Social Impact Assessment whilst acquiring the land. The argument against the removal of these clauses is that it propagates land grabbing by industrialists and also neglects the impact of the particular project on its social environment
2. Removal of limit on acquisition of multi-cropped irrigated land
Section 10 of the 2013 Act provides that no irrigated multi-cropped land shall be acquired unless under exceptional circumstances, as a demonstrable last resort. An equitable area of culturable wasteland shall be developed, if the multi-crop land is acquired. Also that in districts where the net sown area is less than 50 percent, of total geographical area, no more than 10 percent of the net sown area of the district will be acquired.
The Bill seeks to remove the limits on the area of multi-cropped irrigated land that can be acquired for newly proposed land use sectors, whilst at the same time adding that the government must ensure that the extent of land acquired should be the bare minimum that is necessary for the project The critics of the Bill argue this to be threatening the food security of the nation
3. Increase in the period for return of unutilised land
Section 101 of the Act provides that incase the acquired land is unutilised for five years, and then it shall be returned to the original owner or the State Government’s Land Bank.
But the proposed amendment removes this cap of five years and has been extended to the period specified at the time of setting up the project or five years, whichever is later
There have been arguments that this could lead to land hoarding by corporates and subsequent sale at inflated rates.
4. Prosecution of government officials only with prior Governmental sanction
Under the 2013 Act, if an offence is committed by the government in the land acquisition process, the head of the department is invariably be deemed guilty.
The Bill seeks to substitute the provision with the condition of prior governmental sanction before prosecuting that particular official. The opposition believes this provision will undermine the accountability of public officials.

Shortcomings and their solution in my opinion to the Land Bill, 2015 i. The Social Impact Assessment Test must be made mandatory because it aimed at compensating the affected families because of the land acquisition. It also made sure if the acquisition is for the public purpose and is the bare minimum necessary for the proposed purpose. ii. There should be limits imposed on the acquisition of multi-cropped land. It should be acquired only as a last resort.
The Bill was passed by Lok Sabha on March 17, 2015 and has been presented for approval in the Rajya Sabha.