Land Bill: Rebooting the land acquisition debate

In September of 2013, the Government of India made history when it overturned the draconian 1894 law on the subject of land Acquisition and replaced it with a more humane (and vastly more comprehensive) regime.

The new law titled the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 drew sharp responses from both sides of the stakeholder spectrum. Industry, almost universally decried the law as ludicrously difficult to implement, while farmer groups felt it didn’t go far enough in addressing historical injustices. Nonetheless, it was a huge victory on an issue that had been at the heart of almost every single land movement in independent India.

While in opposition, the BJP and its leaders had wholeheartedly supported the law and worked to ensure its passage. It was thus, surprising, when one of the very first exercises that the new Government embarked upon after being sworn into office was the organisation of a conclave to determine the challenges in complying with the new law. To this end, a conference of State Revenue Ministers was held at Vigyan Bhavan, New Delhi in June of 2014. It seemed strange that such a conference should be held when barely six months had passed since the law came into force (of which two months were taken up for the elections) to gauge the challenges of implementing a law which had barely been implemented.

The Finance Minister, Arun Jaitely, issued multiple statements about the perceived shortcomings of the law along with possible amendments to the same. This culminated in an Ordinance on new year’s eve i.e. December 31, 2014. The Ordinance was marked by a complete absence of consultation with the public at large (contrast this with the multiple recorded public consultations held on the 2013 Act including the uploading of every draft on the Ministry’s website) and was simply shared when it was promulgated.

This Ordinance brought about major changes to the very structure of the law. It created a vaguely worded special category which contained activities exempt from seeking consent of the affected parties or satisfying the requirements of the Social Impact Assessment prescribed under the 2013 law.

It posited additional qualifications for return of land and gave officers, who violated the law, the additional protection of sanction before prosecution. The special powers (known as the residuary power) to take actions to implement the law or to remove difficulties was extended from two years to five.

This was, of course, in addition to the amendment that the laws contained in Schedule IV of the 2013 Act (relating to acquisition of land for special sectors such as railways, highways, atomic energy etc.) and which had been exempted for a year’s time from the application of the 2013 law, would now have to apply the provisions related to compensation and rehabilitation/ resettlement contained in the 2013 law. This was not a show of kindness, but rather a necessity, since the 2013 law contained a direction to amend the law within one year to bring the compensation and rehabilitation/resettlement amounts in line with the new law (though they could still follow their own process for acquisition).

Reaction to the Ordinance was almost unanimously negative. Having seen the impact of the new law farmers held multiple protests. Many acres of land had been returned by the Courts to long suffering victims of acquisition across the country in the span of the year since the law became operational. Public sector enterprises were being compelled to negotiate with farmers and land owners if they wanted their land. The land owner had been empowered by the State against the advances of the State. No land owner was keen to return to the arbitrary and capricious systems that had previously existed. As a result, leaders across political parties united in opposing the law.

Currently the law is being debated in Parliament. It remains to be seen if the Government will yield to the various concerns being raised and dilute the provisions of the ordinance accordingly. So far, the Government has held firm. What can be said with certainty is that this debate will go a long way in contributing to how the legacy of the current Government will be written.

(Muhammad A. Khan is an advocate who worked as the Officer on Special Duty to Mr. Jairam Ramesh in the Ministry of Rural Development. He, along with Mr. Jairam Ramesh, is the author of a book on how the new law on land acquisition was made, to be published by Oxford University Press in April 2015.)