{"id":1168,"date":"2013-10-02T22:27:51","date_gmt":"2013-10-02T22:27:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/developmentdebate.in\/?p=1168"},"modified":"2025-07-15T08:18:57","modified_gmt":"2025-07-15T08:18:57","slug":"__trashed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/developmentdebate.in\/?p=1168","title":{"rendered":"Making of a Law: The Right to Fair Compensation, Rehabilitation, Resettlement and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

 <\/p>\n

The government has recently (September 2013) passed a new Act in the
\nParliament which replaces the Land Acquisition Act 1894. The new act unifies
\nland acquisition and R&R and makes R&R legally mandatory.\u00a0 <\/span>The passing of this law has gone through many
\ninteresting phases and has seen various pulls and pushes. <\/span><\/span><\/div>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

In 2009 the Indian government
\npassed two bills \u2013 the Land Acquisition
\n(Amendment) Bill <\/i>(LAA Bill) and the Resettlement
\nand Rehabilitation Bill <\/i>(R&R Bill) \u2013 in the LokSabha<\/i>, legislation intended to support the NRRP 2007. The two
\nbills were not passed in the RajyaSabha<\/i>.
\nIn 2011, however, the government introduced a new Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation & Resettlement Bill 2011 <\/i>(LAR&R
\nBill) (MoRD 2011) in the Lok Sabha<\/i>,
\nabandoning the earlier bills. The bill provided for unifying the land
\nacquisition and R&R and establishing legal provision for rehabilitation and
\nresettlement of the displaced and affected population. The bill was put on the
\nMinistry of Rural Development\u2019s website, inviting comments from public.
\nProvisions of the bill were to apply to all other land acquisition acts used by
\nthe India government. But when the bill was tabled in the Parliament after
\nreceiving comments, the government had added a Schedule IV to it, which
\nprovided that the bill would\u00a0 <\/span>not be
\napplicable in cases of land being acquired under CBA 1957 and 15 other Acts
\n(Schedule IV, LAR&R Bill 2011). The bill had many other shortcomings as
\nwell.<\/span><\/div>\n
\n

 <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

The LARR Bill 2011 was referred to the parliamentary
\nstanding committee related to the Ministry of Rural Development, which in its
\nreport (Standing Committee on Rural Development 2012) criticised the bill on
\nvarious grounds. The committee expressed its apprehensions about the government
\nacquiring land for private companies, the minimal role of local government
\nbodies, and the exemption of land acquisition under 16 government laws \u2013
\nincluding the Coal Bearing Areas
\n(Acquisition and Development) Act 1957<\/i> \u2013 from the scope of the proposed
\nlaw. <\/span><\/div>\n
\n

 <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Criticism of the LARR Bill 2011 and the new Act
\nis concerned with the model of development, which considers
\ndisplacement inevitable; the new Bill is based on the logic of the market and is
\naimed at meeting the growing demand of land for various development projects.
\nThis has been the driving motive behind the rehabilitation policy of the
\ngovernment since its inception. The draft of the first Rehabilitation Policy
\nprepared by the Ministry of Rural Development in 1994 stated the need for a
\nrehabilitation policy to meet the growing demand for land in the wake of
\neconomic liberalization. <\/span><\/div>\n
\n

 <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

The new Act promises higher compensation for the
\nlost land and resettlement and rehabilitation for all displaced and affected
\npeople, including landless people. However, problematic areas remain. The definition
\nof \u2018public purpose\u2019 is too broad in the proposed bill. Itincludes provision to
\nacquire land for private companies and public-private partnership (PPP) projects,
\nbut only after obtaining\u2018informed prior consent\u2019 of 80per cent of the land
\nlosers and those working on government assigned land in case of land being
\nacquired for a private company and that of 70% in case of PPP projects. In the
\noriginal bill the provision was to take consent of all the affected population,
\nincluding the land less. Such provision, however, is not intended for land
\nbeing acquired for government projects. There is also no restriction or limit on
\nprivate companies\u2019 purchase of land on their own. The new Act does not provide
\nfor legal redress; instead it proposes that a land acquisition, rehabilitation
\nand resettlement authority will investigate all complaints. This conforms to
\nthe private sector\u2019s desire to secure land within the shortest possible time.
\nThe new Act also has no provision of approval of local self governance institutions
\nlike PRIs or ULBs. However, it provides for taking approval\/consent local
\ninstitutions of self governance only in the Scheduled areas. The new Act takes displacement as given and favours
\nthe development projects, including that of the private companies, at the cost
\nof the rights of the displaced and project-affected populations (see the\u00a0Overview of the Act<\/a> and FAQs on the Act<\/a> by Ministry of Rural Development)<\/span><\/div>\n
\n

 <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

LARR bill 2011 was subject to much criticism by the
\npeople\u2019s organizations, state governments, and bodies of industries. As
\nmentioned above, it was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the
\nMinistry of Rural Development, which, after many consultations, suggested
\nvarious changes. The government, however, decided to proceed with the bill,
\nwith an alternative title and further dilution of its provisions in order to placate
\nthe industry. The bill was referred to the cabinet withoutincorporating most of the important recommendations of the ParliamentaryStanding Committee<\/a><\/span><\/span>. Some of the cabinet members, however, still were not
\nhappy with the revised bill, terming it as not so investors friendly, and it
\ncould not get cabinet\u2019s approval. The bill was then referred to a Group of
\nMinisters, which further diluted the bill<\/span><\/span><\/a>. <\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Then the revised version of the bill was approved by the cabinet and
\ntabled in the parliament and could finally be passed by the Lok Sabha on August
\n29, 2013, nearly two years after it was first introduced. The bill, however,
\nwas passed by the Rajya Sabha with further amendments<\/a>, to incorporate a
\nsuggestion made by the Madhya Pradesh CM, which include dilution of
\nretrospective clause with regard to\u00a0acquisition of land for irrigation
\nprojects. According to the amendments, the proposed law would not apply to
\nirrigation projects where environmental impact assessment is required under the
\nprovision of any other law already in force.<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n
\n

 <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

With regard to land acquisition initiated under the Land Acquisition
\nAct, 1894, which the present Bill seeks to replace, only the compensation part
\nwould be determined as provided in the proposed law. The amendment drops the
\nproposals on rehabilitation and resettlement.<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n
\n

 <\/p>\n

In case an award had been made, the provisions of compensation under the
\nnew law would be applicable with respect to only those beneficiaries in whose
\naccount the money had not been deposited. The Lok Sabha had approved the
\nprovision that all those who had not accepted the award would benefit. <\/span><\/span><\/div>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

These amendments in the Rajya Sabha required the bill to be sent back to
\nLok Sabha and it was again approved by the Lok Sabha<\/a>. <\/span><\/span><\/div>\n
\n

 <\/p>\n

What is important from the perspective of on going conflicts all over the country over the issues of the land being aquired for mining, and other insdutries, however, is that the new Act provides exemption from its
\nprovisions in the cases of the land acquired under 13 union acts, including the
\nCoal Bearing Areas (Development and Acquisition) Act, 1957, the Land
\nAcquisition (Mines) Act, 1885, Damodar Valley Corporation Act, 1948. So the CIL
\nand its subsidiaries would continue the acquire land under CBA, 1957. These acts have no provisions for R&R. Some of the public secotr compnaies like the CIL and NPCL, however, have their
\nown R&R policies.\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/div>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Therefore, the\u00a0claims by the government to resolve the ongoing
\nland conflicts in the India\u2019s rural and tribal areas with the passing of the
\nnew Act can, at best, be termed as a wishful thinking. According to media
\nreports about 85 to 90% of the land is acquired under the acts which are out of
\nthe purview of the new Act passed by the parliament and the misery of the
\npeople being displaced by those acts are not to be addressed by the new Act and
\nthe opposition to land acquisition efforts by the government is, therefore, likely to continue<\/a>. <\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n