Joginder Singh Toor

THE law of land acquisition, having its origin in England, after the invention of Railway Engine and the need to have a strip of land for its tracks, traveled to India during colonial rule. The three Presidencies of Bombay, Madras and Bengal enforced Bengal Regulation 1 of 1824, Bombay Building Act 1839 and Act XX of 1852 (Madras) for construction of roads, railways and canals.

All these Acts were repealed and substituted by one general law in 1857 for acquisition of land for public purposes in territories earlier under the rule of East India Company. The law took a new turn in 1863 when it provided for acquisition of land for private persons, then in 1870 adding private companies.

The present Land Acquisition Act enacted in 1894 has held the field till now. It is now being vigorously sought to be repealed and replaced because of its arbitrariness, pro-rich inclinations and insensitive to the real right holders, the farmers and the tribals. The vices complained of are manifold.

The scheme of the Act provides that the government takes the decision to acquire land for public purpose or for a private company or for setting up a Special Economic Zone or mega project in public or private sector.

The selection of the land is dictated by private interests or on subjective consideration except where the State or the Centre recently under public pressure has chosen to issue instructions not to acquire fertile land. In case of non-availability of unfertile land near highways or cities, the private operatives manage to pinpoint valuable land abutting highways and roads or near some urban areas.

The government issues a notification under Section 4 of the Act in a government gazette or newspapers which most of the owners do not read or have occasion to note. Individual notices are not issued. Any owner having come to know of the notification u/s 4 is to file objection under 5A to the collector who, after receiving all the objections filed within 30 days has to make a report the government. The government after considering the report has to make a notifications under Section 6 if objections are found untenable, declaring that the land is required for public purpose and this declaration is a proof and carries a presumption that the land is really required the public purpose even if it may be for a private company, or mega project or a SEZ. The government then proceeds to acquire the land.

The agony of the owners starts after the notification under Section 6 and 9 when the collector announces his award stating “the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land”. He has, however, to obtain approval of the state government before announcing the award. The award once announced and filed in collector’s office is final between the State and the land owners.

The aggrieved person may file a reference before the District Judge of the District who may vary the award. Then the appeal lies to the High Court. The process takes a long time, sometimes decades by which time the amount awarded loses much of its value.

Along with the Land Acquisition Act of 1894, there are Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act 1957 on the same pattern as the Land Acquisition Act to deprive the land owners of any mines found in the subsoil and the tribals to live in and enjoy the fruits, leaves, wood and braches of the Jungles.

There is no provision in any of the Acts to relocate any alternative land or livelihood. The law provides some ratio of the compensation as solatiums or consolation, which is termed as cheating, pure and simple.

Some State like Uttar Pradesh had by a legislation disallowed even the amount against solatiums. For twenty years owners in U.P. have been deprived of the solatium.

Sometime, years pass after the notification under Section 4 showing the intention of the State to acquire the land. The owners are deprived of the rights to sell and purchase an alternative land. The law had to be amended so as to make a subsequent notification under Section 6 not later than 3 years, by which time also the alternate land to be purchased gets costlier or unavailable.

There are instances where the land was acquired but not utilized for years together. Law had to be changed that land acquired if not utilized two years for the purpose it was acquired, the acquisition shall lapse. Still there is no law that land found surplus from utilization shall be returned to the owners. There are instances where land required for an industry was 20 acres but the Govt. on the asking of the private company acquired 90 acres. The remaining land is not returned to the owner.

The Supreme Court of India in Mahanadi Coal Fields case after taking note of Dr. Ambedkar’s concern, he expressed in the constituent Assembly on Nov. 25, 1949 that “on January 26, 1950 we are going to enter a life of contradictions. In politics we will have equality and in social and economic life we will have unequally. We will have one person one vote but not one person one value.”

“The whole issue of development” the Supreme Court observes “appears to be so simple logical and common sensical. And yet, to millions of Indians development is a dreadful and hateful word, that is denying them even the source of their sustenance.”

“Development is reckoned in terms of investment in Urban Infrastructure, roads and Highways, Communication, Technology, Extraction and Commercial exploitation of minerals, generation of power, production of steel, metals and alloys. Creation of wealth is important. Redemption is in G.D.P.

“The catch is that there is also the involvement of human factor. Most of the mineral wealth is beneath fertile and forest land, with considerable population. Since centuries dependent on forests and agricultural produce. Large scale mining and industrial and urban development at the cost of tribals and farmers, sans relocation,”.

Uprooted like potatoes and separated from their environment. They become a saleable commodity to be used or jumped live in, social constraints away from relatives with meager money not enough to purchase even households at a distance place much less the property they were forced to leave.

This leads to economic inequality of the worst order, giving rise to discontentment, and violent emotional irruptions. That is why we the sad happenings in Nandigram, Singhur, Lalgarh, in UP and other places, volcanic scenes. The government has promised a relook of the whole issue and to bring a new law on the land acquisitions and to protect the rights of the farmers and tribals.


[The writer is a senior advocate based in Chandigarh 91-9815133530. jogindersingh_toor@yahoo.com]

BACK