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