Land acquisition abuse raises ire

Indian authorities are having a good second look at land acquisition following a spate of violent protests over land for state projects which were acquired and sold to privateers who flog it for 10 to 12 times the rate of compensation to the landowners. NOT so long ago when governments acquired land for public purpose their owners meekly parted with it and accepted whatever compensation that was offered. Invariably, the compensation was a fraction of the market price. Yet, dispossessed owners had no where to complain. Even the courts uncritically ruled that the right of eminent domain allowed the State to acquire land at a fair and just compensation. No longer, though. Thanks to the rising price of increasingly scarce land, and the gross abuse of the States right to acquire it, owners of small farm lands have taken to violently protesting against land acquisition. The huge difference between compensation and market rate has further aggravated the problem. But what forced the authorities to have a good second look at land acquisition was the recent spate of violent protests by marginal farmers threatened with forcible eviction from their small holdings. The latest protest which drew nationwide attention, occurred in Bhatta-Parsaul, twin villages on the outskirts of the national capital in Uttar Pradesh. Earlier in May in protesting against the acquisition, a group of farmers attacked a police party that had gone to Bhatta-Parasaul along with land officials to serve notice of eviction. A cop died and a magistrate was injured when, according to the official version, someone from the crowd opened fire. An enraged local constabulary is then said to have ransacked the homes of the villagers, molested the womenfolk and generally indulged in acts of high-handedness. The opposition leaders claimed that the police had committed atrocities against innocent farmers. The Congress general secretary, Rahul Gandhi, raised the ante by alleging that 70-odd farmers had been killed and their bodies dispose! d of by the police in the dead of night. The UP Government headed by the Bahujan Samaj Party leader, Mayawati, strongly countered the opposition onslaught, stating that the farmers had first fired on the police and that no women were raped or molested. The purpose for which the land was required was for a highway linking the national capital city with the historic town of Agra, which houses the world-famous Taj Mahal. It was hard to sift the truth from the flurry of accusations, though it soon became clear that Gandhi had grossly exaggerated the number of deaths. Actually, the state government was set to sell the acquired land to private developers who would flog it for private houses at ten to twelve times the rate of compensation paid to the farmers. Tens of thousands of farmers all around Bhatta-Parsaul were already witness to the phenomenon of the State acquiring farm lands only to hand it over to private builders for use as residential and commercial purposes. The Bhatta-Parsaul protests focused yet again on the urgency to update the ancient land acquisition laws. Remarkably, the 1894 law allows government to acquire private land without any questions asked. As in any such law, mischief lies in its implementation. Politicians have invariably exploited the law to profit themselves and their friends and to penalise their detractors. In the case of Bhatta-Parsaul, the Chief Minister Mayawati was charged with acquiring the farmers lands only to hand it over to private developers after accepting a huge payoff in illicit compensation. Following the trouble at Bhatta-Parasul, the Sonia Gandhi-led National Advisory Council has come up with its own draft law. The NAC draft proposal combines the land acquisition and rehabilitation laws into one comprehensive National Development, Acquisition, Displacement and Rehabilitation Bill. Calling for compensation at six times the registered price in the concerned area, the NAC recommends mandatory consent of at least 75% of the farmers and village councils whose land was to b! e acquir ed for development. In other words, the remaining 25% of land owners can be naysayers but will still have to part with their land if the other 75% agree to sell the land to an official agency. Also, the Government can acquire 100% of land for public purpose, which includes allotment of such land to private entrepreneurs for industries. Workers dependent on the acquired land should be paid 10 days minimum wage prevalent in that area every month for 33 years as compensation. However, the opposition will have to be on the same page before a comprehensive land acquisition bill can be passed by Parliament. Given the reservations of several constituents of the ruling UPA coalition, and the current mood in the farming community which is generally loath to part with its land, finding a consensus may not be easy.