Law of the land

At long last,Parliament confronts one of the most vexed issues of our time,as a new and much-improved Land Acquisition,Resettlement and Rehabilitation Bill was tabled in Lok Sabha. Many of its clauses can be quibbled with,and probably will be,but there is no denying the need for this legislation. A fair and coherent land acquisition act is most needed now,at a time of intense struggle and negotiation over this valuable resource. Whatever final shape the bill takes,it must address the rising expectations of land-owners and,equally,the rational requirements of industries and cities. As many of the recent agitations reveal,the friction is usually over fair compensation and stakes — farmers do not want to be confined to the land for ever,but do not want to be exploited and left out of the large gains of changed land-use. Efficient land use will be crucial to growth,and any meaningful policy must make sure we build sensibly and extract the maximum value from it.

The definition of public purpose is the crux of the issue,and has been treated with some care — while making a break with coercive takeovers of the past,the draft bill recognises the legitimate demands of “infrastructure development,industrialisation and urbanisation” as part of public purpose. One of the central debates is about the extent of government’s role — should deals be largely transacted between private developers and land-owners,or should the state step in to acquire land on their behalf? The draft bill suggests the government should acquire land if 80 per cent of the stakeholders are agreed. Relief and rehabilitation schemes have been beefed up and made actionable,as part of the law. The other question that must be addressed is that of those who actually work the land — agricultural labourers and share-croppers whose interests may not mesh with that of land-owners,but must be accommodated in the new policy,whatever shape it takes. There are other areas of strong contention,like the issue of multi-cropped irrigated land,which must be thrashed out by various stakeholders. Why should these lands not be used for non-agricultural purposes,if the returns are worth it to the owner? And would not such restrictions cramp certain regions?

The fierce contestations we have witnessed across the country have made it clear that a comprehensive land acquisition law cannot be put off any longer. The process of giving final shape to the law will be critical.