{"id":1160,"date":"2015-02-16T22:27:52","date_gmt":"2015-02-16T22:27:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/developmentdebate.in\/2015\/02\/16\/ordinance-amending-the-land-acquisition-and-rr-act-2013-sell-out-or-payback-time\/"},"modified":"2025-07-15T08:18:11","modified_gmt":"2025-07-15T08:18:11","slug":"ordinance-amending-the-land-acquisition-and-rr-act-2013-sell-out-or-payback-time","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/developmentdebate.in\/?p=1160","title":{"rendered":"ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LAND ACQUISITION AND R&R ACT, 2013: SELL-OUT OR PAYBACK TIME?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\n<\/p>\n
Persis Ginwalla[1]<\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/span><\/div>\n
Sagar Rabari[2]<\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
\nAcquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR, hereafter
\nreferred to as LARR 2013) was the culmination of decades of struggle by
\npeople\u2019s movements against arbitrariness, injustice and land grab. It appeared
\nthat people\u2019s voice was finally reaching the portals of power. And although the
\nAct did not cede the power of eminent domain in favour of the people, there
\nwere, nevertheless, some rather progressive elements there. <\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

The task for the new government was to implement it in right
\nearnest and to iron out the difficulties encountered therein. Much to the
\ncontrary, yet very much in the ambit of the expected, has happened. All
\nindications in the run up to the Lok Sabha elections of 2014 were that the LARR
\n2013, which was perceived by the corporate world as being \u2018anti-growth\u2019 and
\n\u2018anti-investment\u2019, would be amended on the double by the new dispensation at
\nthe centre. And in fact the new Rural Development Minister called a meeting of
\nRevenue Ministers of the states to review the LARR 2013 on June 27th<\/sup>,
\na mere 40 days since assuming power[3]<\/span><\/span><\/a>. By
\n31st<\/sup> December 2014 it stood amended through an Ordinance!! By any
\nstandards, the amendments are regressive and anti-people, anti-farmer and
\nanti-agriculture. All in all, the amendments in the Ordinance 2014 make the LAQ
\n1894 look benign in comparison. <\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
At the outset, let us clarify our usage of the term \u2018farmer\u2019 or
\n\u2018anti-farm\u2019 or \u2018agriculture\u2019 in connection with land acquisition. The ambit of
\nthe land acquisition Act \u2013 old or new \u2013 is limited to private land holding only<\/b>. Forests, coasts, rivers,
\npasturelands, wastelands, lakes and waterbodies \u2013 appropriately termed Common
\nProperty Resources (CPR) \u2013 are not covered by this Act. Not only are they not
\ncovered by the LA Act, they are also not covered by any policy directive or
\nlegal instrument formulated by any government of independent India even today. Pastoralists,
\nfisherfolk, tribals, landless agriculturalists, saltpan workers \u2013 all
\ncommunities that depend on these CPRs are hence left out of the provisions of
\nthis Act. <\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Comparison of some key features of the 2013 LARR Act and the Ordinance
\n2014<\/span><\/b><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
Category <\/span><\/b><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
LARR 2013<\/span><\/b><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
Ordinance 2014 <\/span><\/b><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
Definition of Private Companies<\/span><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
The Act defines private companies as per
\nthe Companies Act, 1956.\u00a0 <\/span>The
\nprovisions of the Act apply to private companies \u201cwith a public purpose\u201d. <\/span><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
Private company is replaced with
\n\u201cprivate entity\u201d. A private entity being \u201cany entity other than a Government
\nentity or undertaking and includes a proprietorship, partnership, company,
\ncorporation, non-profit organization or other entity under any law for the
\ntime being in force\u201d. <\/span><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
Types of projects the Act applies to<\/span><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
Sec. 2 (1) (b) (i): Private hospitals, private educational
\ninstitutions were not exempt from the provisions of the Act viz. consent and
\nSIA <\/span><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
Removes private hospitals and private educational institutions
\nfrom the provisions of consent and SIA<\/span><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
Types of projects the provisions dealing
\nwith Social Impact Assessment and Consent apply to<\/span><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
The process of obtaining consent,
\nconducting a Social Impact Assessment and determining public purpose are
\napplicable to public projects, PPPs where the ownership of the land continues
\nto vest with the government,\u00a0 <\/span>and
\nprivate companies with a public purpose (Section 2 and Sections 7-9)<\/span><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
The process of obtaining consent and
\nconducting SIA are not applicable to the following projects:<\/span><\/div>\n
1. such projects vital to national
\nsecurity or defense of India and every part thereof, including preparation
\nfor defense; or defense production;<\/span><\/div>\n
2. rural infrastructure including
\nelectrification<\/span><\/div>\n
3. affordable housing and housing for
\nthe poor people;<\/span><\/div>\n
4. industrial corridors <\/span><\/div>\n
5. infrastructure and social
\ninfrastructure projects including projects under PPP where the ownership of
\nthe land continues to vest with the government.*<\/span><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
Types of projects food security
\nprovisions apply to<\/span><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
The measures to safeguard food security including
\nthe prohibition on acquisition of irrigated and multi-cropped land except in
\nrare and demonstrably unavoidable circumstances is applicable to public
\nprojects, PPPs where the ownership of the land continues to vest with the
\ngovernment, and private companies with a public purpose (Section 10) <\/span><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
The measures to safeguard food security
\nare not applicable to land acquisition for the following projects:<\/span><\/div>\n
1 to 5 as above <\/span><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
When land acquired under the LAA, 1894
\nis said to have lapsed<\/span><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
Where land acquisition proceedings were
\ninitiated under the LAQ, 1894 where an award was made five years or more
\nprior to the commencement of this Act and physical possession has not been
\ntaken or compensation has not been paid the proceedings will be deemed to
\nhave lapsed. Fresh proceedings should commence under the provisions of this
\nAct.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
In cases where proceedings have been
\ndelayed due to an injunction or stay issued by a court, or where possession
\nhas been taken but compensation is lying deposited in a court or any account,
\nproceedings will not be deemed to have lapsed. <\/span><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
Punishment for Offenses <\/span><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
If any offense is committed under this
\nAct and it is proven that it has been committed with the connivance or
\nconsent or can be attributed to neglect on part of any officer, that officer will
\nbe liable to be proceeded against. <\/span><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
Proceedings against government official
\nwill require the sanction of the appropriate government. <\/span><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
Power to Remove Difficulties<\/span><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
If any difficulties arise in
\nimplementing this Act the Central Government may, by order, make such
\nprovisions, not inconsistent with the Act, to remove difficulties, provided
\nthat no power shall be exercised after the expiry of two years from the
\ncommencement of this Act. <\/span><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
The Central government has the power to
\nmake such orders up to five years from the commencement of this Act.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
Transparency before parliament\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
Notifications pertaining to compensation
\nand R&R needed to be tabled before the houses of parliament<\/span><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
Omitted <\/span><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n
Table
\ncompiled by Samantha Agarwal <\/span><\/i><\/div>\n
*The definition of
\ninfrastructure can be found from the Cabinet Committee on Infrastructure (http:\/\/pib.nic.in\/newsite\/erelease.aspx?relid=80634<\/span><\/a>)
\nSee table in Annexure 1. <\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
What do these mean? <\/span><\/b><\/div>\n
Overturning
\nthe very purpose of the new Act <\/span><\/i><\/div>\n
The raison de etre<\/i> of
\nthe new Act was the blatant injustice to farmers and others dependent on land
\nin the process of land acquisition. In that sense, there were a few provisions
\nthat were at the core of the popular demands which got reflected in the new
\nAct. <\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Firstly, the Act, for the first time responded to the public
\noutcry over the arbitrariness involved in the unexplained term \u2018public
\npurpose\u2019. Many battles have been waged on this issue. Hence, the term public
\npurpose, in this Act, was applied to explicitly stated items (in Section 2),
\nwhich were: <\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Box 1\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>\u2018Public purpose\u2019
\nprojects exempt from consent and SIA requirements<\/span><\/b><\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n
a)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/span>For strategic purposes
\nrelating to naval, military, air force, and the armed forces of the Union,
\nincluding central paramilitary forces or any work vital to national security
\nor defence of India or State police, safety of the people; or <\/span><\/div>\n
b)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/span>For infrastructure
\nprojects, which includes the following, namely: – <\/span><\/div>\n
i)
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>All activities or items listed in the notification of the Government
\nof India in the Department of Economic Affairs (Infrastructure Section)
\nnumber 13\/6\/2009-INF, dated the 27th<\/sup> March, 2012, excluding
\nprivate hospitals, private educational institutions and private hotels; <\/span><\/div>\n
ii)
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Projects involving agro-processing, supply of inputs to
\nagriculture, warehousing, cold storage facilities, marketing infrastructure
\nfor agriculture and allied activities such as dairy, fisheries, and meat
\nprocessing, set up or owned by the appropriate Government or by a farmers\u2019
\ncooperative or by an institution set up under a statute; <\/span><\/div>\n
iii)
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Projects for industrial corridors or mining activities, national
\ninvestment and manufacturing zones, as designated in the National
\nManufacturing Policy; <\/span><\/div>\n
iv)
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Project for water harvesting and water conservation structures,
\nsanitation; <\/span><\/div>\n
v)
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Project for Government administered, Government aided
\neducational and research schemes or institutions; <\/span><\/div>\n
vi)
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Project for sports, health care, tourism, transportation or
\nspace programme; <\/span><\/div>\n
vii)
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Any infrastructure facility as may be notified in this regard by
\nthe Central Government and after tabling of such notification in Parliament; <\/span><\/div>\n
c)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/span>Project for project
\naffected families; <\/span><\/div>\n
d)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/span>Project for housing for
\nsuch income groups, as may be specified from time to time by the appropriate
\nGovernment; <\/span><\/div>\n
e)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/span>Project for planned
\ndevelopment or the improvement of village sites or any site in the urban
\nareas or provision of land for residential purposes fro the weaker sections
\nin rural and urban areas; <\/span><\/div>\n
f)
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Project for residential purposes to the poor or landless or to
\npersons residing in areas affected by natural calamities, or to persons
\ndisplaced or affected by reason of the implementation of any scheme
\nundertaken by the Government, any local authority or a corporation owned or
\ncontrolled by the State. <\/span><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n
<\/div>\n
Although these cover vast areas with broad brush strokes, it is
\nnonetheless a beginning. But more on this later. <\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Secondly, \u2018prior and informed consent\u2019 and Social Impact
\nAssessment (SIA) became mandatory elements for all projects not covered under
\nthe \u2018public purpose\u2019 rubric. The eminent domain powers in the Act of 1894 made
\nthe government undertake land acquisitions without any form of consultation
\nwith the people who were to be displaced. The new Act therefore introduced the
\nconsent requirement, albeit with a caveat. The consent requirement was
\nnecessary for PPPs where the ownership of the land continues to vest with the
\ngovernment, and private companies with a public purpose. It was, however, not
\napplicable to public sector undertakings and for \u2018public purpose\u2019 (mentioned
\nabove). Gram sabha consent was also introduced for the first time in this Act,
\nalong with the introduction of a new category called \u2018affected families\u2019, i.e. consent,
\nnot only of land owners only, but all such families that derived their sources
\nof livelihood\/income, directly or indirectly, from the said land. In other
\nwords, the participation of the people and their voice in \u2018development\u2019 was
\nlegislated. <\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Along with this, there was also the requirement of a Social Impact
\nAssessment for all projects which mandated the consent requirement. The SIA was
\nintroduced with the objectives of ascertaining the impacts of the project on
\nthe area, its environment and ecology, on the natural resources of the area,
\nand on the people residing therein, the extent of livelihood generation for the
\nlocal population (to be displaced from land-based occupations), and whether the
\nland being acquired was absolutely the minimum requirement for the project. Moreover,
\nsuch an exercise would also help to ascertain the number of \u2018affected families\u2019.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Two of these most crucial elements of the new Act stand amended by
\nthe Ordinance. Amendment 3(i) of the ordinance does away with both these
\nrequirements i.e. consent and SIA, for \u201cprivate hospitals and private
\neducational institutions\u201d (which were earlier not exempt from these
\nprovisions). 3(ii) exempts projects listed in section 10 A which is newly
\nintroduced. Section 10A is part of a new chapter, III A, which is essentially a
\nlisting of projects which will be exempt from the provisions of consent and SIA
\nover and above those contained within the definition of \u2018public purpose\u2019 (Box
\n1). The list of projects which are covered by the \u2018consent\u2019 and SIA requirement
\nwould be shorter that the one exempting projects from them!! The new exemptions
\ninclude: <\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Box 2\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>Section 10(A) of
\nChapter III A of the Ordinance exempting further areas from consent and SIA
\nrequirements <\/span><\/b><\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n
a)
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Such
\nprojects vital to national security or defence of India and every part
\nthereof, including preparation for defence; or defence production; <\/span><\/div>\n
b)
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Rural
\ninfrastructure including electrification; <\/span><\/div>\n
c)
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Affordable
\nhousing and housing for the poor people; <\/span><\/div>\n
d)
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Industrial
\ncorridors; and <\/span><\/div>\n
e)
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Infrastructure
\nand social infrastructure projects including projects under public private
\npartnership where the ownership of land continues to vest with the
\nGovernment. <\/span><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n
<\/div>\n
The struggle over inclusion of the definition of \u2018public purpose\u2019
\nthus stands negated. This is a regressive step and dangerous in its
\nimplications \u2013 for livelihoods, for farm-displaced and low or semi-skilled
\nworkers, for foodgrain production and food security. The above items are also
\nexempt from the \u2018measures to safeguard food security\u2019 viz. the prohibition on
\nacquisition of multi cropped irrigated land except in \u201crare and demonstrably
\nunavoidable<\/span> circumstances\u201d.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
At another level, it poses serious threat to the socio-economic
\nfabric of the country. Land \/ private property have not been granted the status
\nof fundamental right as in other countries. Eminent Domain powers were a
\ncolonial imposition for exploitative use of land by the colonial power. The <\/span>retention
\nof eminent domain powers was to safeguard society
\nfrom the pitfalls of zamindari<\/i> system
\nthat was prevalent in India till land reforms were initiated by the
\npost-independent state. In other words, the eminent domain powers were granted
\nto the state to be used on the side of the poor and marginalised, the last
\namong the least[4]<\/span><\/span><\/a>. The history of the
\nimplementation of the LAQ in post-independent India has been anything but. The
\nLARR 2013 was thus a correction of a wrong (although it does not do away with
\nthe eminent domain powers of the state). The Ordinance is reversing this and
\nmoving towards facilitating the transfer of and consolidation of massive
\namounts of land in the hands of a few corporate \/ industrial houses and big
\nindustrialists. <\/span><\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Likewise \u2018Consent\u2019 and SIA were achievements of decades of
\nstruggle by farmers, people\u2019s organisations, social movements. Removing these
\neases the road for corporate houses and big industry. Again, the terms here
\ne.g. \u2018projects vital to national security or defence of India\u2019 or \u2018rural
\ninfrastructure\u2019 or \u2018affordable housing\u2019 are fluid and lend themselves to flexible
\ninterpretations to suit then current convenience. Food shortages can also
\nendanger national security. Ports are also vital for the defence of India. Which
\ncan be included and which can be exempt? This will perforce have to be decided
\nby the judiciary. Which will take 10, 15, 20 years. Perhaps more. In effect, a
\nzero-sum game for big industry with deep pockets. <\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
New element in the Ordinance<\/span><\/i><\/div>\n
The Ordinance has added one new aspect viz. substituting the words
\n\u2018private company\u2019 in the Act with \u2018private entity\u2019. This new term, \u2018private
\nentity\u2019, has been defined as: \u201cany entity other than a Government entity or
\nundertaking and includes a proprietorship, partnership, company, corporation,
\nnon-profit organisation or other entity under any law for the time being in
\nforce\u201d (Section 3(ii)(yy)). <\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The government\u2019s power to acquire land was restricted, earlier, to
\ncompanies registered under the Companies Act. This amendment removes this
\nrestriction and empowers the government to acquire it for anyone or anything as
\nper its will, choice or discretion, including an individual (this has not been
\nspelt out explicitly but is implied). This level of arbitrariness was perhaps
\nnot there even in the LAQ 1894. This must be looked at in conjunction with the
\nchanges in the definition of Company introduced in the new Companies Act, 2013
\n(see Annexure 3). There is an addition here: one-person company, private
\ncompany, small company and dormant company. In other words, the employment
\npotential of the upcoming industry had to be weighed against the displacement
\nof the residents from agriculture or any other land-based occupations. This
\nlimitation is now removed and land can now be acquired even for a business
\nestablishment employing 1 person!!<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Removing \/ altering clauses in
\nLARR 2013<\/span><\/i><\/div>\n
Section
\n24 (2)<\/span><\/u> stipulated that in cases where land had been acquired under the
\nprovisions of LAQ 1894 but physical possession had not been taken or
\ncompensation had not been paid, then the proceedings were to be deemed to have
\nlapsed and the matter would have to be started afresh under the provisions of
\nthis Act. The Ordinance amends this provision by adding a proviso which
\nessentially means that any delay on account of litigation (court mandated stay
\nor injunction), or where the compensation amount lies unclaimed in the court,
\nthen such period will not be factored into the computation of the period of
\nlimitation. <\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Section
\n87<\/span><\/u> stipulated when and under what conditions a government officer
\ncould be held guilty and proceeded against in a court of law. It removed the
\nearlier constraint, viz. \u201cthe previous sanction of the appropriate Government\u201d
\nand would therefore act as a deterrent to bureaucrat-businessman nexus which
\nwas always detrimental to farmers\u2019 interests. This section has been amended by
\nthe Ordinance and restores the previous limitation of government sanction for
\nprosecution of a government employee. <\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Section
\n101<\/span><\/u> stipulated that any land acquired but remaining unutilised for a
\nperiod of 5 years from the date of possession would revert back to the original
\nowner\/s or their heirs or to the Land Bank of the government. The amendment has
\nsubstituted the words \u201ca period of 5 years\u201d by the words \u201ca period specified
\nfor setting up of any project or for five years, whichever is later\u201d. This is
\nanother major concession to the corporate lobby. The original stipulation was
\nto remedy the situation where land was acquired without any work being carried
\nout on it, and farmers rendered landless and jobless, and having to contend
\nwith the fact of their land having appreciated ten or twenty fold since
\nacquisition and feeling cheated out of their due. The amendment again brings in
\narbitrariness in acquisition and holding. The project proponent may stipulate a
\nlonger duration (say 10 or 20 years) for setting up of a project and retain the
\nland (most often for speculation). This is a draconian provision which will
\nreturn India to a state of oligarchy and zamindari<\/i>
\nunder a new socio-economic dispensation with a new set of zamindars<\/i>. <\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Section
\n105 (3)<\/span><\/u> stipulated that in cases of land acquisition (acquired under the
\nprovision of LAQ 1894) where compensation was pending or possession had not
\nbeen taken, compensation and R&R provisions as per LARR 2013 had to be made
\napplicable to all enactments listed in the Fourth Schedule[5]<\/span><\/span><\/a> of
\nthe Act within 1 year from the date of commencement of this Act, i.e. by
\nSeptember 2014. The ordinance has extended this limit to 1st<\/sup> January
\n2015. <\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Section
\n105 (4)<\/span><\/u> which mandated that any notification pertaining to compensation
\nand R&R applicable to the enactments in the Fourth Schedule would have to
\nbe tabled (as a draft) in each House of Parliament, would have to be passed by
\nthem and only such notification as has been passed (with modifications) may be
\nissued and if not passed, then would not be issued. This section has been
\nomitted in its entirety by the Ordinance. This means that R&R and
\ncompensation matters, the source of much heartburn, had to be transparent and
\nopen. The deletion of this clause means that these would not be brought before
\nthe Houses of Parliament and may be legislated through GRs. How are people to
\nknow about these matters? RTI queries are routinely scuttled under one pretext
\nor the other. The word \u2018Transparency\u2019 in the title of the Act is thus
\ncompletely negated.\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
This last issue, legislation and governance through GRs, is
\nimportant to understand for the implications for democracy and transparency. \u2018Governance
\nthrough GRs\u2019 was an indispensable part of the \u2018Gujarat Model of Development\u2019,
\nnow going national. Important policy related issues were routinely dealt with
\nthrough GRs instead of being tabled in the Assembly and being debated there. Elections,
\nelected representatives, opposition party were all systematically sidelined and
\nmade redundant. \u2018Governance through Ordinance\u2019 is but an imitation of this
\ntried and tested method. 6 months, by when the Ordinance will have to be put
\nbefore the Houses of Parliament, is a long time for any and all kinds of
\npolitical deals. Unless the people make their voices heard loud and clear. So
\nfar, it is one court that the politicians do fear. <\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Suppression
\nof civil liberties<\/span><\/b><\/div>\n
Whenever such draconian provisions to existing laws are made, it
\nis imperative that they be challenged publicly by the people by voicing their
\ndissent, in a non-violent manner and within the bounds of law. However, in
\nrecent times, the state, through its law and order machinery, has been coming
\ndown heavily on such public forms of protest, at least in Gujarat. Although no
\nviolence has been committed by the state the voice of dissent and protest has
\nbeen successfully stymied. The routine methods of doing so are: a) denial of
\npermission by the police for peaceful protests; b) holding activists and
\nleaders into preventive detention of 24 \u2013 72 hours; c) arrests of activists and
\nleaders and court cases on them; and, d) routine visits and phone calls by LIB,
\nIB officials to activists and leaders (as a means of intimidation). In such an
\natmosphere organising and leading protest programmes becomes difficult and
\ndissent is successfully silenced. Suppression of civil liberties is thus
\nanother method for furthering the neo-liberal agenda. <\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Conclusion<\/span><\/b><\/div>\n
The amendments in the Ordinance have, at the stroke of a pen,
\ndecimated the achievements of decades of hard struggle by adivasis, farmers,
\npeople\u2019s movements against injustice in land acquisition. All amendments, it is
\nclear, are to the benefit of the corporate lobby and are farm-unfriendly. 18
\nindustrial corridors all over the country, which will take away land from a
\nmajority of farmers of the country, being exempted from the provisions of this
\nAct reveals the anti-farm, anti-people attitude of the government. All farmers
\nin the DMIC route falling in Gujarat (covering 18 districts and 60% of its
\nland) will be adversely affected by these amendments. <\/span>Incidentally,
\nthe new amendments, by and large, remain true to the demands voiced by the
\nRevenue Ministers of the states (Annexure 2). \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
However,
\nit is not that farmers are the only large group coming for severe punishment.
\nLabour laws are also slated for amendment. While it is not clear what they will
\nbe, given the anti-people or pro-management attitude so far displayed, they
\nwill certainly not benefit the labourers. Dismal as the scenario seems, these
\namendments could yet prove to be an opportunity to bring together two huge
\nlabouring classes of our society viz. farmers (rural) and industrial labourers
\n(urban). It could be a moment of reckoning. <\/span><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
[1]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> Persis
\nGinwalla is a development sector professional and an activist with Jameen
\nAdhikar Andolan Gujarat (JAAG), Ahmedabad. <\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
[2]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> Sagar
\nRabari is an activist associated with the land rights struggles in Gujarat and
\nIndia and is Secretary, Khedut Samaj \u2013 Gujarat, Ahmedabad. <\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
[3]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> The Conference of
\nState Revenue Ministers was held on 27th<\/sup> June, 2014 at Vigyan Bhavan
\nunder the Chairpersonship of Hon\u2019ble Minister of Rural Development Shri Nitin
\nGadkari. Altogether 32 States and Union Territories participated. 12 States\/UT
\nnamely, Assam, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Goa, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala,
\nMadhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Meghalaya, Tamil Nadu and Telangana were
\nrepresented by their Lt. Governor \/ State Deputy Chief Minister in-charge
\nRevenue \/ Revenue Ministers \/ Rural development Minister; the reset were
\nrepresented by their Principal Secretaries \/ Secretaries. The States of
\nArunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Nagaland and Sikkim did not attend the Conference.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
[4]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> \u201c\u2026<\/span>right
\nof eminent domain of the State (is) … merely an assertion that natural wealth
\nbelongs to the people, to the State\u201d (K. T. Shah, in CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF
\nINDIA DEBATES (PROCEEDINGS), Vol. VII, 9th December, 1948)<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
[5]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> Viz.
\nthe Ancient Monuments and Archeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (24 of
\n1958); the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 (33 of 1962); the Damodar Valley Corporation
\nAct, 1948 (14 of 1948); the Indian Tramways Act, 1886 (11 of 1886); the Land
\nAcquisition (Mines) Act, 1885 (18 of 1885); the Metro Railways (Construction of
\nWorks) Act, 1978 (33 of 1978); the National Highways Act, 1956 (48 of 1956);
\nthe Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land)
\nAct, 1962 (50 of 1962); the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable
\nProperty Act, 1952 (30 of 1952); the Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land
\nAcquisition) Act, 1948 (60 of 1948); the Coal Bearing Areas Acquisition and
\nDevelopment Act, 1957 (20 of 1957); the Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003); and
\nthe Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989).\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n


<\/span><\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Annexure
\n1<\/span><\/b><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Master List of Infrastructure sub-sectors<\/span><\/b> <\/b><\/div>\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
Sl.No.<\/span><\/b><\/b><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
Category<\/span><\/b><\/b><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
Infrastructure
\nsub-sectors<\/span><\/b><\/b><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
1.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
Transport<\/span><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
Roads and bridges<\/span><\/div>\n
Ports<\/span><\/div>\n
Inland Waterways<\/span><\/div>\n
Airport<\/span><\/div>\n
Railway Track, tunnels, viaducts, bridges<\/span>1<\/span><\/div>\n
Urban Public Transport (except rolling stock in case
\nof urban road transport)<\/span><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
2.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
Energy<\/span><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
Electricity Generation<\/span><\/div>\n
Electricity Transmission<\/span><\/div>\n
Electricity Distribution<\/span><\/div>\n
Oil\u00a0\u00a0pipelines<\/span><\/div>\n
Oil\/Gas\/Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) storage facility<\/span>2<\/span><\/div>\n
Gas pipelines<\/span>3<\/span><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
3.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
Water Sanitation<\/span><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
Solid Waste Management<\/span><\/div>\n
Water supply\u00a0\u00a0pipelines<\/span><\/div>\n
Water treatment plants<\/span><\/div>\n
Sewage collection, treatment and disposal system<\/span><\/div>\n
Irrigation (dams, channels, embankments etc)<\/span><\/div>\n
Storm Water Drainage System<\/span><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
4.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
Communication<\/span><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
Telecommunication (fixed network)<\/span>4<\/span><\/div>\n
Telecommunication towers<\/span><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
5.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
Social and Commercial Infrastructure<\/span><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
Education Institutions (capital stock)<\/span><\/div>\n
Hospitals (capital stock)<\/span>5<\/span><\/div>\n
Three-star or higher category classified hotels
\nlocated outside cities with population of more than one million<\/span><\/div>\n
Common infrastructure for industrial parks, SEZ,
\ntourism facilities\u00a0\u00a0and agriculture markets<\/span><\/div>\n
Fertilizer (Capital investment)<\/span><\/div>\n
Post harvest storage infrastructure for agriculture
\nand horticultural produce including\u00a0\u00a0cold storage<\/span><\/div>\n
Terminal markets<\/span><\/div>\n
Soil-testing laboratories<\/span><\/div>\n
Cold Chain<\/span>6<\/span><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n
1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Includes
\nsupporting terminal<\/span><\/div>\n
2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Includes
\nstrategic storage of crude oil<\/span><\/div>\n
3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Includes city
\ngas distribution network<\/span><\/div>\n
4.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Includes\u00a0optic
\nfibre\/cable networks which provide broadband \/ internet<\/span><\/div>\n
5.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Includes Medical
\nColleges, Para Medical Training Institutes and Diagnostics Centres<\/span><\/div>\n
6.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Includes cold
\nroom facility for farm level pre-cooling, for preservation or storage of
\nagriculture and allied produce, marine products and meat.<\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/div>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

Annexure
\n2<\/span><\/b><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The
\nConference of State Revenue Ministers<\/span><\/b><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The Conference of State
\nRevenue Ministers was held on 27th<\/sup> June, 2014 at Vigyan Bhavan under
\nthe Chairpersonship of Hon\u2019ble Minister of Rural Development Shri Nitin
\nGadkari. Altogether 32 States and Union Territories participated. 12 States\/UT
\nnamely, Assam, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Goa, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala,
\nMadhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Meghalaya, Tamil Nadu and Telangana were
\nrepresented by their Lt. Governor \/ State Deputy Chief Minister in-charge
\nRevenue \/ Revenue Ministers \/ Rural development Minister; the reset were
\nrepresented by their Principal Secretaries \/ Secretaries. The States of
\nArunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Nagaland and Sikkim did not attend the Conference. <\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
A summary of the suggestions
\non the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
\nRehabilitation and Resettlement (RFCTLARR) Act, 2013 made during the Conference
\nof State Revenue Ministers is as follows:<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\u00a7\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/span>The Consent Clause [Section 2(2)] should be
\nre-examined, as ownership of land vests with the Government in PPP projects.
\nThe Consent clause should be removed from PPP projects. Alternatively, consent
\nrequirement may be brought down to 50%. <\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a7\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/span>Definition of \u2018affected family [Section 3(c)]
\nneeds to be re-examined as it is very elaborate and includes \u2018livelihood
\nlosers\u2019 working in the affected area for three years prior to acquisition of
\nland and whose primary source of livelihood is affected. The Act provides for
\nR&R benefits to the affected families. Hence, the provision is likely to be
\nmisused in the absence of clear criteria for determination of affected
\nfamilies. <\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a7
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Posers of
\n\u2018Appropriate Government\u2019 [Section 3(e)] which are with the Central Government
\nshould be delegated to the Union Territories. <\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a7
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Mandatory
\nSocial Impact Assessment study (Sections 4 to 9) should be done away with, SIA
\nshould be confined to large projects\/PPP Projects as it may delay the
\nacquisition process. <\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a7
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>The
\nprovision to safeguard food security (Section 10) by development of \u2018culturable
\nwastelands\u2019 in lieu of acquisition of \u2018multi-cropped irrigated land\u2019 needs to
\nbe amended as States like Delhi, Goa, Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand do not
\nhave any wasteland for the purpose. <\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a7
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>The
\nRetrospective clause (Section 24) which stipulates that land acquisition
\nproceedings would lapse in case compensation is not paid or physical possession
\nis not taken should be modified. Payment of compensation as per New Act to the
\npersons specified in Section 4 notification under old Act leads to increased
\nburden on the State exchequer. The provisions of Section 24 need to be amended
\nas it is leading to litigations. <\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a7
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>The
\nlitigation period or period of stay \/ injunction should be excluded while
\ncalculating the prescribed time limits for completing various proceedings under
\nthe Act a.g. Section 24(2), Section 25. <\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a7
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Section 26
\nshould be re-examined as determination of market price of land based on
\n\u2018agreements to sell\u2019 will lead to speculation in land prices. As such, at
\npresent the compensation paid is higher than market value in Himachal Pradesh,
\nLakshadweep, Kerala etc. <\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a7
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>In Section
\n30(3), the date from which an amount of 12% of market value is to be given,
\nshould be calculated from date of preliminary notification under Section 11 and
\nnot from Section 4 notification which deals with SIA study as stipulated in the
\nAct presently. It also contravenes the Section 69(2) of the New Act which deals
\nwith determination of Award by authority and stipulates calculation of 12% of
\nmarket value from date of preliminary notification under Section 11. <\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a7
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Under the
\nUrgency Clause (Section 40), the powers to determine \u2018any other emergency\u2019
\nshould also be exercised by the State Government. At present, urgency clause is
\nrestricted to \u2018the Defence of India or National Security or for any other
\nemergency arising out of natural calamity or any other emergency with the
\napproval of Parliament\u2019. <\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a7
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Section 46
\nstipulating R&R obligation in case of private purchase beyond limits
\nspecified by the State Government should be deleted. <\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a7
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>The
\njurisdiction of Authority (Section 51) should be restricted to dispute
\nresolution only and not be on determination of award. <\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a7
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Penalty
\nProvisions (Sections 84-90) including imprisonment of 6 months extendable to 3
\nyears or with fine of with both for the Government Servants are too stringent
\nand may lead to harassment of civil servants. <\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a7
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Section
\n101 dealing with return of unutilised land to the original land owners or heirs
\nshould be deleted. <\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a7
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>The clause
\nspecifying sharing of 40% enhanced cost with original land owners (Section 102)
\nwhen the land is transferred on higher consideration should be deleted as it
\nleads to disputes. <\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a7
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Under
\nSection 104 of the Act, a formula for calculating \u2018lease amount\u2019 may be given,
\nas a formula has been prescribed for calculating compensation value. <\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a7
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>There
\nshould be threshold for R&R entitlements in Second Schedule and
\ninfrastructural amenities in Third Schedule. <\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a7
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Under
\nSecond Schedule, the provision of \u2018land for land\u2019 should be re-examined. <\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a7\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/span>State Specific Acts dealing with land
\nacquisition should be included in the Fourth Schedule exempting the enlisted
\nActs from provisions of the New Act.<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Annexure
\n3<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Definitions
\nand changes introduced in the Companies Act 2013<\/span><\/b><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
1.1 One-person company:<\/span><\/b> The
\n2013 Act introduces a new type of entity to the existing list i.e. apart from
\nforming a public or private limited company, the 2013 Act enables the formation
\nof a new entity a \u2018one-person company\u2019 (OPC). An OPC means a company with only
\none person as its member [section 3(1) of 2013 Act].<\/span><\/div>\n
1.2. Private company: <\/span><\/b>The 2013 Act introduces a change in the definition
\nfor a private company, inter-alia, the new requirement increases the limit of
\nthe number of members from 50 to 200. [section 2(68) of 2013 Act].<\/span><\/div>\n
1.3. Small company:<\/span><\/b> A small company has been defined as a company,
\nother than a public company.<\/span><\/div>\n
(i) Paid-up share
\ncapital of which does not exceed 50 lakh INR or such higher amount as may be
\nprescribed which shall not be more than five crore INR<\/span><\/div>\n
(ii) Turnover of which
\nas per its last profit-and-loss account does not exceed two crore INR or such
\nhigher amount as may be prescribed which shall not be more than 20 crore INR:
\nAs set out in the 2013 Act, this section will not be applicable to the
\nfollowing:<\/span><\/div>\n
\u2022 A holding company or
\na subsidiary company<\/span><\/div>\n
\u2022 A company registered
\nunder section 8 <\/span><\/div>\n
\u2022 A company or body
\ncorporate governed by any special Act [section 2(85) of 2013 Act]<\/span><\/div>\n
1.4. Dormant company:<\/span><\/b> The 2013 Act states that a company can be
\nclassified as dormant when it is formed and registered under this 2013 Act for
\na future project or to hold an asset or intellectual property and has no significant
\naccounting transaction. Such a company or an inactive one may apply to the ROC
\nin such manner as may be prescribed for obtaining the status of a dormant
\ncompany.[Section 455 of 2013 Act]<\/span><\/div>\n
(Excerpted
\nfrom Companies Act, 2013: Key Highlights and Changes, Pricewaterhouse Coopers)<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n