iNM Volume 7 | Page 10

iNM Magazine Volume 7 | August 2015 Current Buzz e land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill was then finally proposed in Lok Sabha in 2013 to replace the previous ruling and was passed in lower house of legislature with strong protest from allies as well as opposition. It was criticized as being an “Anti-Farmer Bill”. Market Price of the land. In case of a deferred payment, the compensation would be provided as a 15% interest rate p.a. from the date of the expiry of payment of compensation. ese 7 components, while laying out a clear cut groundwork had some basic flaws which combine to compound the fight between the land owners and the claimants. Some points of disagreement from the landowner's side were the arbitrar y nature of Compensation, the inadequate compensation for displacement of the landowners from their initial place of business. Members criticize the bill on the grounds that the amendments in the bill were mainly for land owners and it worsened the condition of the rural mass. Economists suggest that it attached an arbitrary mark-up to the historical market price to determine compensation price, along with its numerous entitlements to potentially unlimited number of claimants. An article in e Wall Street Journal claims that the proposed amendment rules will apply even when any private company acquires 100 acres of land or more. For context, POSCO Indiaseeks about 4000 acres for its US$12 billion proposed steel manufacturing plant in the Indian state of Odisha. In most cases, even small companies planning US$10US$300 million investment, seeking 100 or more acres will be affected by the compensation plus rehabilitation effort and expenses. e WSJ article further claims that the proposed bill doesn't actually define the word “acquisition,” and leaves open a loophole that could allow government agencies to continue banking land indefinitely. For the claimants, the act had gaping holes as it failed to place a cap on the prices charged for the land by the landowners which often led to incomplete dealings. Also, the people questioned the purpose of the acquisition of land which caused dissonance between the dealing parties. All in all, although a good start to allow a balanced and equitable system of land transfers, the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was in dire need of restructuring and after a century of turmoil in the national landscape of politics, finance, governance, we, as a nation have had enough experience to comment on the previous situation and deduce that there was a lot to be done as far as keeping in mind the needs of the masses is concerned. After providin