Comment on the LARR 2011 bill proposed by the MoRD

The LARR bill 2011 carries all essential features of the anti people 1894 LAA colonial law – that the govt. has a right to acquire land of people (govt. and not the people is the real owner); public interest is to be decided by the govt.; govt. has a right to deny people even the right to object under ‘emergency conditions’.

In the name of addressing public concern on an outdated law and the avowed aim of striking a ‘balance’, a sinister plan that blatantly advances commercial and business interests of big capital has been proposed in the LARR, 2011. It ignores the basic development needs of the nation and its working people and is contemptuous towards the valiant struggles and sacrifices of farmers, fishermen and adivasis to safeguard their livelihood. It shamelessly protects the cause of private companies to capture agricultural land, coasts and forest wealth and water and mineral resources of the country. It entirely undermines the security interests of agriculture in our largely agricultural society, food self sufficiency and food security of 120 crore plus people, livelihood interests and security of more than 80 crore farming population, security of peoples’ culture, environment and ecology. All these have been sacrificed at the altar of commercial interests of big capital, contractors, builders, middlemen – now under the twin banners of ‘public purpose’ and ‘Rehabilitation and Resettlement’.

Read the Introduction to the draft issued for comments signed by Jairam Ramesh – “Infrastructure .. must expand rapidly. Industrialization based on manufacturing has also to accelerate. Urbanization is inevitable. Land is .. essential… Govt. needs to acquire land”.

Not a word here on developing agriculture which will bring food security, gainful employment to the people, increase their income, increase their purchasing power and strengthen local markets, increase local demand of necessities, stimulate manufacturing and thus improve the national economy. All emphasis is on catering to interests of MNC controlled big capital.

Read further – “In every case land acquisition must take place in a manner that fully protects the interest of land owners, and also those whose livelihoods depend on land being acquired”. What interests? That of ‘land owners’, not as farmers. Because that precisely is the way big MNC capital and comprador Indian govt. views Indian peasantry. So only the ‘owner’ interests of peasants and those whose livelihood depends on that land is to be ‘fully’ protected. Meaning land has to be taken away (‘acquisition must take place’) with monetary value of their owner interest and value of the work potential of those who work on the land, as assessed ‘fully’ has to be put in their hands.

Any doubts, read further – “Land markets in India are imperfect. There is no symmetry of power between those wanting to acquire and those whose lands are being acquired. That is why …. a role for the govt. to put in place … set of rules and regulations and to ensure its enforcement.” These are rules for “land markets” in which purchasers have to be helped with acquisition and uprooted farmers/ workers have to be ‘rehabilitated’ and ‘resettled’. “Public purpose” is for the gullible.

There are 18 laws of land acquisition and this law will “enjoy primacy over other such specialized legislations ..”. The draft bill “is compliant with” Panchayats Extension to Scheduled Areas (PESA) Act 1996, Scheduled Tribes and Other Forest Dwellers ( Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006 and the Land Transfer Regulations in Schedule V (tribals) areas. That means that even safeguards given in these will now be subjected to the “rules and regulations” enforced under the LARR, 2011.

Any surprise then that the industry has welcomed the bill. CII stated that the fact that the “government would continue to play a significant role in land acquisition for industrial development as proposed in the draft bill is in fact a very positive step, since planned industrialization is essential for job creation and inclusive growth". It said the State should fulfill its responsibility for economic development and must play its critical role in acquiring land for industrial projects.

Subsequent to these observations laying down the purpose of land acquisition in the draft for discussion the final bill introduced has started with the words “to ensure a humane, participatory, informed consultative and transparent process for land acquisition for industrialization, development of essential infrastructural facilities and urbanization with the least disturbance to the owners of the land and other affected families and provide just and fair compensation ….cumulative outcome of compulsory acquisition should be that affected persons become partners in development leading to an improvement in their post acquisition social and economic status…..”.

Again there is no mention of development of agriculture, its infrastructure etc and truth is that after acquisition even the whereabouts of the affected persons will not be known.

Now, the provisions of the bill.

1. Applicability

Chapter 1 of LARR, 2011 - It shall apply when the govt. acquires land (a) for its “own use, hold and control”, (b) for the purpose to transfer it for use of private companies for a “stated public purpose” including Public Private Projects, and (c) or on the request by private companies for use in public purpose.

2. Claim of safeguards : 80% of affected families have to “give their consent” in (b) and (c) and public purpose “once stated, cannot be changed”.

The original draft had defined affected family as one who had lost its land or livelihood. Now Section 3 (c) defines “affected family” as (i) a family whose land …  acquired or … permanently displaced..; (ii) a family which does not own any land but a member or members of such family may be agricultural labourers, tenants, share-croppers or artisans or may be working in the affected area for three years prior to the acquisition of the land, whose primary source of livelihood stand affected by the acquisition of land; (iii) tribals and other traditional forest dwellers who have lost any of their traditional rights recognised under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 due to acquisition of

land; (iv) family whose primary source of livelihood for three years prior to the acquisition of the land is dependent on forests or ..… affected due to acquisition of land; (v) …. (vi) a family residing on any land in the urban areas for preceding three years prior to the acquisition of the land or whose primary source of livelihood for three years prior to the acquisition ….”. This means that work, livelihood and main dependence for this on that land/ forest/ pond/ river for last 3 years shall have to be documented and established. Is this really possible for poor and landless people in India?

As far as consent is concerned, 80% consent can easily be manufactured under pressure from landlords, middlemen, govt. forces and due to pressure of fait accompli. As the law states ‘affected people’ and not ‘displaced farmers’ so sections not being displaced, but being affected can also be included to create 80%. Moreover peoples’ support for these projects has been falsely claimed by rulers even where mass protests have broken out.

3. Changes in Declared Purpose and land not used for declared purpose: The clause that ‘No change’ can be made in declared purpose does not apply to (a) which includes ‘hold’ and ‘control’ of land meaning that the govt. can change ‘declared purpose’ for which it acquires land. Moreover there is no penal provision for changes made in declared purpose, like return of land to original owners, fine, jail etc.

Moreover the earlier draft stated that if a land is not utilized for the declared purpose then it will have to be given back to the basic owners. The proposed Act in section 95 states that “When any land or part thereof, acquired under this Act remains unutilized for a period of ten years from the date of taking over the possession, the same shall return to the Land Bank of the appropriate Government by reversion”. So there is no question of land being returned to those who had been cheated and deprived of it in the name of a ‘public purpose’.

4. Public Purpose:

Position in the proposed law: Section 3(za) states “public purpose” includes—

the provision of land for strategic purposes relating to naval, military, …. safety of the people; or

(ii) …  for railways, highways, ports …. use by Government and public sector companies or corporations; or

(iii) …. for project affected people;

(iv) … for planned development or the improvement of village … or any site ….  for the weaker sections in rural and urban areas or ….Government administered educational, agricultural, health and research schemes or institutions;

(v) …. for residential purposes to the poor or landless or … natural calamities, or ..displaced …

(vi) …. in the public interest for—

(A) use by the appropriate Government for purposes other than those covered under sub-clauses (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v), where the benefits largely accrue to the general public; or

(B) Public Private Partnership projects for the production of public goods or the provision of public services;

(vii) the provision of land in the public interest for private companies for the production of goods for public or provision of public services:

Provided that under sub-clauses (vi) and (vii) above the consent of at least eighty per cent. of the project affected people shall be obtained …

Provided further that where a private company after having purchased part of the land needed for a project, for public purpose, seeks the intervention of the appropriate Government to acquire the balance of the land it shall be bound by rehabilitation and resettlement provisions …. “

The focus of the entire list is on industrial and commercial establishments and completely ignores needs of development of agriculture and the farming community who form 70% of India’s population and whose development, not displacement is the key to India’s advancement. All acquisitions in which the ‘purpose’ has been criticized as being against public interest, where public was being uprooted for the benefit of corporate houses have now been incorporated into the law itself, to deflect criticisms in future.

Moreover the final decision on ‘public purpose’ again rests with the govt and the appropriate level panchayats in the name of the people are only to be consulted. The strong bureaucratic stranglehold over panchayats will ensure that no panchayat opposes a govt. plan.

5. Who decides Public Purpose? The 1894 Act did not define public purpose but only made reference to a number of works to be included in public purpose. It left wide scope for (mis) interpretation and only required that the govt. should record its satisfaction. In chapter VII it provided for acquisition of land for companies. The LARR also does not define public purpose, though the minister claims it does. It also, only ‘includes’ works (as above) with wide scope for varied interpretation as “where benefits will largely accrue to the general public”. People themselves will have no role in the decision making of the project. They will only be given right to indirectly express themselves during the consultation of panchayats social impact assessment (chapter II).

6. Claim on Better social Impact assessment and more transparency.

Provisions are in Chapter II. Social impact assessment will be done for a long list of ‘public and community properties’, etc by an expert group consisting of 2 non official social scientists, 2 experts on rehabilitation and one expert from the project (expert committee). It shall apply only when a private party purchases more than 100 acres in rural area and 50 acres in urban areas or if the land is being acquired by the govt. Gram Sabha will have to be ‘consulted’.  Nature of public interest involved, extent of displacement, social and economic impact, impact on several types of assets, environmental costs and impacts and “nature and cost of addressing them” will be assessed. 

Importantly, the list of impacts makes no mention on impact on the losses that accrue to the public at large like agricultural production, horticulture, food security, employment loss. It does not also mention losses of genetic resources, mineral wealth, forest wealth, animal life and ecology, etc . This social impact assessment can be exempted whenever the land acquisition is under emergency measures. The expert committee is to justify that the acquisition is for stated public purpose and in larger public interest and that the benefits outweigh the costs.

Then a committee under the Chief Secretary will assess and approve the acquisition and the social impact assessment report. It will comprise govt officials of various departments. It will certify that the acquisition is in “long term” “public purpose”, the social impact assessment for the land is valid and that the Collector has explored …. “especially land under assured irrigation is being acquired only as a last resort”.

The act has provision for publication of the Acquisition Order after the report of the Social impact assessment committee and consultation with the related local Panchayat body. It further has provision for objections (section 16), hearing on the objections, preparing of a report on the acquisition to the appropriate govt and then “the decision of the Appropriate Govt. on the objections shall be final”. A R&R scheme will also be prepared simultaneously and published and subsequent to this the land will be acquired. (sections 19 and others)

Moreover, most land being acquired today is with District Collectors certifying that no other barren land is available and also falsely certifying that the land being acquired is not multi cropped land. Despite canals running through the fields and records to show it is irrigated collectors have certified that the land is un-irrigated, barren land. Now under LARR the Chief Secretary shall sanctify the Collectors ‘wisdom’ of acquiring ‘irrigated multi cropped land’ as a last resort.

7. SPECIAL PROVISION TO SAFEGUARD FOOD SECURITY (Chapter 3)

The earlier draft had a provision that ‘irrigated multi cropped land’ shall not be acquired except as a last resort to be certified by the collector. The first part of shall not be acquired has been changed to “Such land may be acquired subject to the condition that it is being done under

exceptional circumstances, as a demonstrable last resort, where the acquisition of the land

referred to in sub-section (1) shall, in aggregate for all projects in a district, in no case exceed

five per cent. of the total irrigated multi-crop area in that district” (Chapter III section 10 -2) along with promises of developing equal amount of waste land, etc.

Ironically this is the ‘safeguard’ provided for ‘food security’. There is no provision of providing for anything meaningful for better agriculture and food security like better facilities, inputs, land, irrigation, etc.

8. Impact on Scheduled Areas and Tribal Displacement:

Section 11 of Schedule II deals with special provisions for Schedule tribes. Here where 100 or more families are to be displaced “a Tribal Development Plan” is mandated. In this “land rights due … have to be settled with restoring titles of tribals on alienated land by undertaking a special drive together with land acquisition”.

After long struggles against attempts of the govt. to displace tribals whole-hog the govt was forced to enact some safeguards under the FRA 2006 and PESA along with those under Schedule V and VI of the constitution. These safeguards, of reversing their alienation, have not been implemented despite assurances and this stands out as a monumental failure of all state govts and the centre. All states have laws commanding the govts. to restore to the tribals their traditional rights. Yet vast majority of tribals live without any recognition of their rights over their traditional abode. Now the LARR is promising “restoration of titles of land from which they were alienated” together with the acquisition drive which will displace 100 or more of them from the land on which they have been living without titles! The govt. really expects people to believe them. It actually needs to answer why it has linked restoration of the tribal rights to land acquisition for the corporate world? Is the alienation of those tribals whose land is not being acquired not to be ended? Is this tag of acquisition with “restoration of titles of land” in reality only a legal cover for the acquisition by first giving the tribals the titles and then compensation money for very that land? Obviously the plan is to keep tribals continuously alienated and to use the conferring of titles only give compensation, as a legal cover for the acquisition.

For record sake, this act talks of rehabilitating tribals with ensuring alternative fuel, fodder, rights over non timber forest produce within a period of 5 years, payment of at least one third compensation amount due at first installment, resettlement in one block in the same scheduled area preferably, fishing rights in ponds or dam reservoirs (which they any way had), reservation benefits, additional 25% payment in case of settlement outside the district, etc.

9. Urgency Clause: Section 30 – “In cases of urgency, whenever the Appropriate govt. so directs, ……. on the expiration of 30 days from the publication of the notice ……  take possession of any land needed for a public purpose and such land shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government, free from all encumbrances”. This part is just as in the LAA, 1894, except that there it was 15 days.

And further “The powers … shall be restricted to …. Defence of India or national security or any emergencies arising out of natural calamities. ….. shall be used in the rarest of rare cases.” It appears that in light of recent repeated court rulings this is a real change made from the previous law of 1894. It remains to be seen how much this is twisted in the name of ‘national security’, especially in light of the undeclared internal war of the govt. against tribals and other struggling people. After all establishment of army and police camps will always be for ‘national security’ even if they are against ‘India’s own children’.

Provisions of the social impact assessment report can be waived under the emergency clause.

10. Rehabilitation and Resettlement:

The most decorated and propagated section of this LARR is the R&R. All ruling class govts, compliant media and pliable intellectuals have been trying to propagate farmers and tribal opposition as due to poor alternative of Rehabilitation and Resettlement. The provisions under this are actually a measure to ensure that the govt can overcome the criticism from civil society and sensitive intellectuals that farmers and tribals have been cheated, they have not been adequately compensated, the compensation of the land has been severely undervalued, the law is ineffective and insensitive, etc. Now all this has been fixed in the law itself.

In this manner both the issues which had put the govt on the defensive while acquiring land, that is ‘public purpose’ and ‘rehabilitation and resettlement’ have been legally sanctified.

Politically, in the contention between ruling class parties, the Congress is not only using this “R&R” as a means to deflect attention away from the real issue of forced displacement, which all parliamentary parties support, it is also using it to upstage the opposition, particularly BSP in UP on this aspect of the issue.

It should not be surprising that apologists of the govt land acquisition policy are patting Jairam Ramesh for this ‘fair’ deal. Civil Society activist and member, National Advisory Council, NC Saxena stated that farmers feel cheated because “prices have gone up and everyone is making money except them. So therefore it is important to make them stakeholders in urban development or industrialisation." He said the bill is a “viable package for both the industry and farmers”. Harsh Mander called the bill a very special thing and fair for the people. Disdainful towards the misery of the farmers, tribals and fishermen and their strenuous struggle for survival, ruling classes are trying to feign that farmers and tribals are also seeking a share in the business of money making.

11. Provisions of R&R and comments:

Applicability - All acquisitions of more than 100 acres.  Meaning it will not apply to smaller parcels.

Compensation - It is 2 times the market value in urban areas and was 6 times market value (half to be paid as solatium) in rural areas but to make things better for the companies, this too has been reduced to 4 times. For up to 10 years 20% of appreciated value will be given to the original owners. It is not stated anywhere as to in how many installments the compensation will be disbursed or how the appreciated value will be tabulated and dispersed.

Market value is to be determined not by actual value in market but either by “Minimum value” specified in the Indian Stamp Act 1899 for registration of sale deeds in the area or by average sale price of 50 % sale deeds registered during past 3 years. This is always several times lower than market price as govt. notified rates of sale deed registrations for agricultural lands at the time when acquisitions are taking place are very low and they rise many fold (hundreds of times) when acquisitions have been completed and it becomes commercial property through land use conversion to commercial land done  by the govt. Why then has the govt. said that the peasants will be given 4 times the ‘market’ value? Obviously it is to guaranteeing 96% of the value to be earned by big business.

Houses: For those whose houses are being acquired, a house built on a minimum plinth area of  50 sqm in urban areas shall be provided and for rural areas as per the Indira Awas Yojna. Normally this only means monetary support and not land. Moreover this will apply to those who have been living for 3 years in the area without a homestead land also. Those opting not to take the house shall be given Rs 1.5 lacs. A one-time resettlement allowance of Rs 50,000 will also be given to all these. But the catch here is mainly for the landless to prove that the person has been living in the area for last 3 years. With the govt unwilling to give compensation this can be easily misused.

Land for land:. SCs and STs losing land will be given land in every project. In case of urbanization 20% of developed land is to be given to them in proportion to the acquisition done. It is not mentioned that this will be free of charge. It is also not clear how and where this will be enforced, particularly in acquisitions involving large areas where several villages are displaced.

Land for land in Irrigation projects: This is the biggest fraud on the people. It provides for provision of 1 acre of land for all families displaced or losing land due to irrigation projects and  equivalent amount of land or 2.5 acres, whichever is lower, to all SC and ST families. This law provides to give similar and equal amount of land to such displaced. But this is simply not possible in cases like the Narmada Dam and Polavaram Dam displacements which are in lacs of people and thousands of square kilometers.

Subsistence allowance of Rs 3000 per month for one year shall be given. STs displaced from scheduled areas shall get Rs 50,000 in addition. Other small grants are there for small shops, artisans, fishing rights etc.

Mandatory employment: In the draft for discussion there was provision of one job per family or Rs 2 lac in lieu of that. This has been enhanced to Rs 5 lacs. In addition as per the annuity policy, an inflation linked amount of Rs 2000 per month for 20 years is to be paid. However this allowance and mandatory employment have been made alternatives to each other and the displaced person will have to choose only one of them. This is when for a family to survive even both these provisions would not have been enough. This should also be viewed in reference to the opening statement of the law “leading to an improvement in their post acquisition social and economic status”

Infrastructure facilities in resettled village/ colony: It is a long list in Schedule III which a un – acquired village or city basti will be very proud to have. The list includes provisions like schools, sub health centre, grazing ground, playground, one community centre for 100 families, panchayat ghars, drinking water for cattle, seed cum fertilizer storage facility, veterinary services etc. Imagination has run wild, probably to impress the World Bank and other creditors. But it is entirely meaningless. A govt which does not provide even a fraction of these facilities to existing villages and is uprooting villages to acquire land for companies can hardly be expected to resettle villages. Talk of facilities is futile.

12. Grievance Redressal: The bill seeks to establish a State level and a National Land Acquisition Dispute setelement Authority which will address all “disputes relating to land acquisition, compensation, Rehabilitation and Resettlement”. This will provide for a more pliable judicial set up for the govt at the initial level.

Section 57 reads “No civil court (other than High Court under article 226 or article 227 of the Constitution or the Supreme Court) shall have jurisdiction to entertain any dispute relating to land acquisition in respect of which the Collector or the Authority is empowered by or under this Act, and no injunction shall be granted by any court in respect of any such matter.”

13. Post Script: Till date, in all projects for which land has been acquired, the displaced people have only suffered loss of employment and livelihood, of their homes and environment and of their culture and relationships. All promises of jobs, houses and ‘development’ have proved to be a mirage. That is why recent spate of anti displacement agitations has seen several displaced people from earlier projects raising the demand for unfulfilled promises. These projects, being based on drive of MNC capital for cheap raw materials, cheap land, cheap natural resources and cheap labour for high profits, displace people in huge numbers depriving them of their livelihood, providing jobs only to a miniscule section. Hence, howsoever flowery the R&R, it cannot fulfill the needs of development needs of the people and their economy. These promises are only to fool the innocent and to rally the greedy.

While there can be no meaningful R&R of people evicted from agriculture and forests, their lives can be developed. People need a comprehensive plan to develop and improve their agriculture, their handicraft skills, their education, their culture and their social security. But this is opposed to the profit needs of corporate, big contractors and big landlords. These projects are not about people, but about big capital. The task before us is to fight against them, to fight for developing the economy of the people and to prevent their displacement and uprooting.

Annul Land Acquisition Act 1894

Reject Land Acquisition and R&R Bill 2011

Ban industrial and commercial use of agricultural land

Protect livelihood sources, land and water of tribals, dalits, fisermen,and dependant people.

No land to MNCs

New industries only on land of closed industries & non agricultural land

Affected people should have final say in all decisions of ‘public purpose’

Develop agriculture

Decrease land ceiling and distribute land to landless

Provide cheap and quality inputs

Expand and Regularize irrigation

Ensure profitable marketing of agricultural products.