Opinion - Editorials   

Land for public purpose

The state periodically invokes its power of eminent domain and acquires private lands for public purpose. Where the acquisition is for projects such as roads there is little conflict. It is quite different where lands are compulsorily acquired to help private enterprises. Events in the recent past have raised fresh questions regarding the definition of public purpose and nature of compensation. The existing Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is inadequate to address these concern s. In this context, the recent report by the Parliamentary Standing Committee that reviewed the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 2007, has raised lot of expectations. To its credit, the committee has discouraged attempts to unreasonably favour private companies and suggests that the clauses which give scope for inconsistent interpretation and misuse be removed. These recommendations are to be welcomed, but what is overlooked is the core issue — should the state get involved in acquiring land for private companies? Is it not best left to the market forces as in the case of real estate companies which on their own have created large land banks exceeding at times hundreds of acres? Where acquisition for private companies becomes inevitable, at least excessive land acquisition should be checked. Neither the bill nor the committee attempts to resolve this question.

When it comes to compensation, the proposed legislation continues to view it only in monetary terms. Consequently, the only challenge it takes on itself is to arrive at the fair value of land acquired. Since the records with the registration department do not reflect the correct market value, the committee has suggested that land values spread over threes years preceding the date of notification be considered for this purpose. It also recommends that independent experts could also be involved. These are definite improvements over existing methods. But the question how to expand the notion of compensation to include other social costs such as loss of livelihood remains to be addressed. The committee suggests the solatium be raised to 60 per cent of the land value from the current 30 per cent. Will this make up for the losses? Alternative forms of compensation such as employment and pension are envisaged only under the proposed Resettlement and Rehabilitation Bill 2007. Even this is applicable only where 400 or more families (in plains) are affected en masse by land acquisition. Where the number of people displaced is lower, the families have to settle for what the Land Acquisition Bill offers. This anomaly needs to be addressed and non-monetary forms of compensation provided for.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Gloomier by the day
Land for public purpose
For secessionists, humiliation follows hubris
India Rising and the hunger index
Everybody loves a good conspiracy
Recession triggers ‘lipstick effect’
Corrections and clarifications
Anti-terror laws
Defensive measures
Condemnable
Much ado
Harassment

Copyright © 2008, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu