As the land acquisition bill comes under a fresh cloud, experts point out that a little noticed clause has been introduced in the amended draft legislation to ostensibly protect land under Scheduled Areas, yet does not protect either the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes who are most vulnerable to land sharks.
Under the new Bill, a new clause has been added to Section 38 of the Constitution (State to secure a social order for the promotion of welfare of the people). This clause, Section 38 A (1), states that “as far as possible no acquisition of land shall be made in the scheduled areas.” In fact, such land shall be exempt from acquisition except in extreme contingencies and as a “demonstrable last resort”.
Experts were puzzled over the new provision, for good reason. The Scheduled Castes are present in every village in India and also have small landholdings. But land held by Scheduled Castes does not fall under “Scheduled Area” and is at par with land owned by other castes. Thus, the Scheduled Castes are not being protected under this provision.
As far as Scheduled Tribes are concerned, most States already have laws that ban purchase of land from tribals. They are also protected under the Fifth and Sixth Schedule of the Constitution.
Neither the existing laws, nor the proposed laws, aim to protect land belonging to the tribes, and tribals are currently the most vulnerable communities as far as land acquisition by/for corporates is concerned.
In Odisha for instance, tribal lands have been acquired and are still being acquired by the State Government for the multinational POSCO, even though the Memorandum of Understanding with the company has long expired and the project is thus legally null and void. In the States of Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, and Jharkhand too, tribal land is being acquired for industry. These lands have not been protected under the Scheduled Areas Act 1996, and will not be protected under the amended Bill either.
Informed sources say this provision has been introduced exclusively to protect lands held by a certain minority community. Persons associated with the drafting of the Amended Bill recall that members of a religious order, wearing long white robes and a religious icon round their necks, often visited Parliament House during the consultation process and met a certain Member of Parliament who is head of one Standing Committee and a member of the Standing Committee on the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill, 2011. The said MP belongs to the same community and is known for his proximity to the Congress’s ruling family.
The proposed changes come under the amended Chapter III. Here, land acquisition has been made virtually impossible by providing that such acquisition would require “(3) … the prior consent of the concerned Gram Sabha or the Panchayat or the autonomous district councils, by resolution, at the appropriate level in the scheduled areas, as the case may be, shall be obtained, in all cases of land acquisition in such areas, including acquisition in case of urgency before the issue of the notification under this Act, or any other Central Act, or a State Act for the time being in force as per the provisions of the Panchayats, extension to the Scheduled Areas Act 1996 and other relevant laws”.
Such discriminatory protection for land held by an organisation of non-farmers, at the cost of farmers, has enraged observers, and is likely to be legally challenged if the Bill becomes law.
Observes point out that 85 per cent of farmers in the country are small and marginal farmers with less than 2 acres of land of varying quality. These farmers produce enough to support their families without burdening the State in any way, and take their small surplus to the market to feed the rest of the country.
When the population of the country stood at just 35 crore, the nation was forced to seek charity under PL-480. Now, a population of 120 crore plus is being fed by humble farmers and huge surpluses of grain are rotting in the godowns of a callous State.
Yet it is precisely such poor farmers who lost land in Nandigram and Singur, and other places, and not rich farmers.
The whole amended Bill reeks of discrimination. If the consent of the Gram Sabha or Panchayat supported by a resolution is to be binding in Scheduled Areas of a particular character, there is no justification for denying the same protection to all Gram Sabhas or Panchayats or Municipalities. This critical power which affects the lives and livelihoods of families cannot be vested in their chairmen who can be pressurized as individuals.
Now that major opposition parties are rethinking support to the Bill, it may be time to amend Chapter 4 Section 11 on notification and acquisition of rural land and make consent (not consultation) mandatory. The Government must also explain why the Bill makes land acquisition easy for the private sector by including it under the concept of public purpose, but does not consider it necessary to extend Section 38 A to all areas in any part of the country where land is sought to be acquired for public purpose under this Act.
The Rashtriya Lok Dal, a key ally of the Congress-led UPA Government, has sounded the bugle against the controversial land acquisition bill by leading a protest of farmers angered over land acquired by the JP group for a township around Agra, on April 28, at Lucknow. Led by Jayant Choudary, Mathura MP and son of RLD leader Ajit Singh, and state unit president Munna Singh Chauhan, the protesters demanded that farmers be compensated to the tune of six times the circle rate, as promised by UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi and Amethi MP Rahul Gandhi.
Nearly 510 hectares of land from five villages (Chalesar, Garhi Rani, Chaugan, Bagaura, Nagla-Nathu and Nagla Tankhi) was handed over to the builder in 2010, under the regime of former chief minister Mayawati.
NitiCentral.com, 2 May 2013
http://www.niticentral.com/2013/05/02/whose-land-is-it-anyway-72711.html