1 Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation in India Fast economic growth in India in the last two decades has increased

demand for land from many sources, such as infrastructure, industry, mining, and urbanisation, including real estate. Even when many of these activities are funded privately and are driven by profit motive, they serve a social purpose - as employment generation per unit of land is higher in non-agricultural uses than in agriculture. Growth through industrialisation and urbanisation would not only increase labour productivity but will also reduce pressure on farm land by pulling people away from land to non-farming occupations. However, acquisition of land by government has lately drawn resistance in many cases due to inadequate and uncertain compensation for the land, loss of livelihood of the affected people and involuntary displacement without proper rehabilitation. The colonial land acquisition law of 1894 that is still in vogue has been quite hostile to the interests of the landowner, as it attempts to make land available to government at a minimal price. So far the practice in most state governments has been to coerce people to give up their pieces of land by using the legal powers of eminent domain, and in some cases even through the use of force. Thus the model followed has been--'let some people lose out so that others (this includes some enterprising poor too) may gain'. Unfortunately the losers tend to be the poorest with little skills, often tribals, who are unable to negotiate with the market forces and cope with the consequences of their forced expulsion from land, and end up much worse off than before acquisition. Before 1990, most land was acquired by government for large irrigation projects, public sector enterprises, and other explicit public purposes such as new townships of Chandigarh, Gandhinagar, and Bhubaneswar, and therefore the use of coercive legal powers carried at least some credibility in the eyes of the public. In the last two decades however powers of eminent domain have also been used for acquisition for private industry, which is driven, not by the noble cause of national development, but profit motive (Ray and Patra 2009). Though such private enterprise may contribute to direct and indirect employment generation, peoples perception of these activities being in public interest is generally negative, and therefore they are less tolerant of being made to leave the area or accept unfair compensation in such cases. Consequently, there has been growing protest and militancy leading to tension, conflict and violence, besides increasing costs involved in delayed acquisition of land. Some estimates suggest that at least 60 million Indian citizens were displaced between 1947 and 2004, among whom at least 40% were tribals and 20% dalits (Fernandes 2004). Of those displaced, less than 18% were resettled (Fernandes 2008). This has turned millions of independent producers into propertyless labourers, and could have been avoided with imaginative land acquisition and rehabilitation policies. It may be noted that in a recent case (Hindu 13th March 2011) the Supreme Court held: Any attempt by the State to acquire land by promoting a public purpose to benefit a particular group of people or to serve any particular interest at the cost of the interest of a large section of people, especially of the common people, defeats the very concept of public purpose. This problem needs to be sorted out by making radical changes in the Land Acquisition Act. The Ministry of Rural Development has recently suggested in a draft Bill that is awaiting discussions in the Parliament that compensation should be

2 increased to a minimum of four times the present registered value of that land in rural areas and twice the present value in urban areas. Second, whenever land acquired by government is transferred to an individual or a company for a consideration, 20% of the difference between such consideration and the compensation will be given to the original land owner. Third, the landowners and even the landless who were dependent on that land would get a job or Rs 5 lakhs in lumpsum or Rs 2000 per month (indexed to inflation), every month in her/his bank account for the next 20 years. Finally, the entire land could be acquired by government but only when 80% of the project affected people have given their consent. Some other features of the new Bill are as follows: Land Acquisition and Resettlement & Rehabilitation (R&R) need to be seen necessarily as two sides of the same coin, hence the need for a joint law. Not combining the two R&R and land acquisition within one law, risks neglect of R&R. Government would discourage acquiring any multi-crop irrigated land for public purposes. The following categories are considered as public purpose: o Strategic purposes: e.g., armed forces, national security; o Infrastructure and Industry: where benefits largely accrue to the general public; o Land acquired for R&R purposes; o Village or urban sites: planned development, residential purpose for the poor and educational and health schemes; o Land for private companies for public purpose; o Needs arising from natural calamities The Urgency clause can only be invoked in the following cases: o National defense and security purposes o R&R needs in the event of emergencies or natural calamities o To be exercised in rarest of rare cases Subsistence allowance at Rs. 3000 per month per family for 12 months would be given to those displaced. If house is lost, a constructed house of plinth area of 150 sq mts of house site in rural areas or 50 sq mts plinth area in urban area would be provided. One acre of land to each family in the command area, if land is acquired for an irrigation project; but one acre to all tribal affected families in all cases

A project affected family has been defined as a person, his or her spouse, minor children, minor brothers and minor sisters dependent on him; it includes land owners, agricultural labourers, tenants, share-croppers or artisans if working in the acquired

3 area for three years, tribals and forest dwellers who lose rights recognised under FRA. An adult without spouse is a separate family. Following are the additional provisions for SCs/STs: 1. 2.5 acres of land or extent of land lost to each family in every project 2. One time financial assistance of Rs. 50,000 per family; 3. Families settled outside the district shall be entitled to an additional 25% R&R benefits; 4. Payment of one third of the compensation amount at the very outset; 5. Preference in relocation and resettlement in area in the same compact block; 6. Free land for community and social gatherings; 7. In case of displacement, a Development Plan is to be prepared. 8. Continuation of reservation and other Schedule V and Schedule VI area benefits from displaced area to resettlement area. Each large development project (acquiring more than 100 acres) would be first subjected to a legally binding holistic appraisal as to the desirability and justifiability of the project. The public, and particularly the people likely to be affected, must be given due opportunities of information and hearings, and allowed to examine all aspects of the project, including the 'public purpose', and also the possibilities of achieving the same objectives through non-displacing or less displacing alternatives. Following time lines have been provided in the Bill for completion of the whole process: 1. Compensation will be given within a period of three months from the date of the award; 2. Monetary R&R entitlements will be provided within a period of six months from the date of the award; 3. Infrastructure R&R entitlements will be provided within a period of eighteen months from the date of the award; 4. No involuntary displacement will take place without completion of R&R; 5. In irrigation or hydel projects, R&R shall be completed six months prior to submergence Wherever the people are not willing to shift, it must be assumed that the fault is either in the package being offered, the progress of implementation or in the approach to the displaced communities. The provisions of an enlightened rehabilitation and compensation policy must have legal backing so that not only the concerned agencies of the government but affected and interested citizens can ensure enforcement and legal intervention. Unfortunately law pertaining to rehabilitation has been on the anvil since 1998, but it has still not seen light of the day, though it is well established that more than three-fourth of the displaced people, especially tribals become worse off due to involuntary displacement. For the displaced people, the new settlement must be as close to the factory site and new township as possible so as to ensure maximum access to the newly created

4 economic opportunities. In such projects, a major responsibility of the project authorities should be training and capacity building of the affected families. In between intention to set up a project and displacement there is always a significant time gap. During this period, every project affected person (PAP) who consents must be made literate, and trained for semiskilled or skilled jobs as per the choice and educational qualifications. Low compensation is not the only cause for resistance. It is also because of trust deficit that exists today between government and the peasantry because the promises accorded to them on earlier occasions for rehabilitation and settlement have not been fulfilled; and the compensation amount has been uncertain and irregular. Thousands of families displaced by various projects are still awaiting compensation payments. In a few cases, those displaced in early 1970s are yet to receive compensation (Sardana 2011). In many cases the true beneficiaries are the absentee landlords and intermediaries, but not the poor peasantry. To sum up, the impoverishment and displacement of rural communities due to improper land acquisition and rehabilitation can easily be avoided through a more imaginative set of policies that insist on informed consent of at least 80% of the affected people. Establishment of vocational training centres, water, sanitation and health facilities in the rehabilitation site should precede before actual displacement. Demonstrative implementation of rehabilitation and resettlement measures would bring down their distrust against administration, which is at present not only creating conflicts but even delaying industrialisation, and implementation of government sponsored irrigation and power projects. Further reading Bandyopadhyay D (2008): Singur: What Happened, What Next and Time to Pay the Cost Economic & Political Weekly November 29, Fernandes, Walter (2004): Rehabilitation Policy for the Displaced, Economic & Political Weekly, 39(12), 1191. (2008): Sixty Years of Development-Induced Displacement in India in H M Mathur (ed.), India Social Development Report 2008: Development and Displacement (New Delhi: Oxford University Press), 89. Gonsalves Colin (2010): Judicial Failure on Land Acquisition for Corporations, Economic & Political Weekly August 7, vol xlv no 32 Ray, Sanjukta and Shreemoyee Patra (2009): Evolution of Political Economy of Land Acquisition, at http://www.scribd.com/doc/44959477/India-Infrastructure-Report2009# Reddy, V Ratna And B Suresh Reddy (2007): Land Alienation and Local Communities Case Studies in Hyderabad-Secunderabad, Economic and Political Weekly August 4 Sardana M.M.K., (2011): Land Acquisition Issues, ISID Discussion Notes, at http://isid.org.in/pdf/DN1002.pdf Sugata Marjit (2010) Guaranteeing Future Claims of Farmers in Land Acquisition: An Option-Pricing Approach, Economic & Political Weekly December 25, vol xlv no 52

5 Vijayabaskar M (2010): Saving Agricultural Labour from Agriculture: SEZs and Politics of Silence in Tamil Nadu, Economic & Political Weekly February 6, vol xlv no 6