'Opposition criticism questionable'

The land acquisition ordinance promulgated on December 31, 2014, has been the subject of intense public debate, political bickering and contention.

Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley has justified the changes saying that in its previous form, the Act was incomplete and included many glaring mistakes and omissions. Critics argue that these changes will negatively impact the poor rural worker and farmers, making it easier for the industry to take land away from rightful owners or ignore the negative social impact of such acquisitions.

Too much emotion has perhaps prevented careful analysis of the amendments. Yet, after studying the act of 2013 and its subsequent 2014 amendment in detail, opposition to the ordinance is somewhat bewildering and the validity of the criticism questionable.

Not only does the ordinance revise sections that were in need of immediate change, it makes the previously one-sided bill a more balanced law that protects communities while adequately protecting farmers’ interests along with encouraging investment and infrastructure growth.

 Of the important amendments, the first is the change in the Social Impact Assessment (SIA) requirements. The SIA as suggested by the original bill was a lengthy, open ended process to assess the impact that any land acquisition would have had on the owners of the land and those working on it in the previous few years. No clause in the bill ensured that the SIA report would be published within 2 months as stated by the government.

 The overly complicated the SIA norms would have taken years to just assess, let alone recommend an award and could have potentially stalled much needed investment for years.

Secondly, it finally identifies who will be affected by such acquisitions. Rather than incorporating everyone who is dependent on the land, its focuses on ownership.

The 2013 Act had left the identification of those dependents on the land entirely undefined and by doing so not only made compensating those affected by acquisitions completely unrestricted and at times unaffordable but also open for litigation, which would further delay projects.

Thirdly, the ordinance only exempts government acquisition in five identified sectors from provisions of the act and does not provide avenues for acquisition by private entities as argued by critics.

The sectors which include: defence and security, rural infrastructure and electrification, affordable housing, industrial corridors and infrastructure projects are all beneficial for both rural and urban India and the development of these sectors is the sovereign duty of any central government.

Public infrastructure projects
Fourthly, the amendment incorporates 13 previously exempted laws that allowed government acquisition of land. Land Acquisition (Mines) Act 1885, Atomic Energy Act 1962, National Highways Act 1956 etc., are now subject to the same compensatory and relocation and rehabilitation (R&R) requirements that land acquisition for large scale public infrastructure projects must adhere to.
Fifthly, the ordinance omits the five year limitation of stalled development which returns land to original owners.

This allows large infrastructure projects with genuinely longer gestation periods the necessary time period for successful completion. Projects in sectors like nuclear energy, railways, defence and aviation can require longer time periods than just five years.

Under these changes, it will be possible to complete projects without the fear of litigation and unrest, demanding return of land as soon as the five years have expired.

And finally, the amendment also eliminates restrictions in acquisition due to classification of land by use. The previous clauses in the bill that restricted acquisition of fertile, multi-crop generating land, precluded industrialisation in large areas where it may actually be greatly needed.

The entire Indo-Gangetic plain would be left unindustrialised if these changes had not been made. Land in India is highly and unnecessarily politicised.

With 328.7 million hectares available of which 158.6 million hectares are arable, the government may not end up needing any fertile land, but a provision allowing to use it, makes development projects easier wherever required.

The only valid argument against the ordinance is that the without the SIA, there exists no mechanism to determine if the  government already owns land that is unutilised in the area that it is seeking to acquire more land.

For this, the government should urgently create land inventories and take stock of the land owned by it, its affiliated entities and public sector enterprises.

The government, in its endeavour to serve the overall national interest, has done well in reforming a previously one-sided bill to a more balanced approach that not only responds to the needs of a growing, modern India but maintains the social protections that are needed to safeguard the interests of the farmers and more vulnerable sections of society.

The Centre has finally found a solution that does not make land acquisition a zero sum game. It has found a sustainable and equitable compromise between spurring investment and growth on the one hand and farmers’ interests and food security on the other. This is a laudable achievement.

(The writer is Associate Fellow, Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi)