Opinion Landing on its feet

Modi government begins addressing problems of an act that stopped land acquisition in its tracks.

When the BJP was projecting itself as the next ruling party, it was never quite clear why it went along with UPA’s Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement (LARR) Bill that threatened to choke off not just industrial projects, but even government ones, such as godowns for the FCI. Perhaps it was in deference to electoral compulsions, to ensure it didn’t get labelled an anti-farmer party. Whatever the reason, what’s important from the point of view of the slowdown in land acquisition as a result of the LARR getting passed by Parliament is that the BJP now appears to be working to undo some of the act’s more damaging parts. And, given how state governments across party lines have taken serious exception to various provisions of the act, it appears likely the government will be able to pull it off. The Uttar Pradesh government, for instance, has said that the consent of land-losers should not be required if land is being acquired for PPP projects; Chhattisgarh, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh have said the definition of the “affected family” is way too broad and needs to be whittled down. States like Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat have said the social impact assessment (SIA) should apply only to really large projects.

Advertisement

The important thing to keep in mind is that the states are not objecting to giving land-losers a good price for their land. And that is how the LARR started off initially. The highest price of a land transaction in an area over a period of time was to be taken as a base; this was to be doubled; this 2x figure was to be further multiplied — the LARR recommended a figure of 2, but left it to states, and some like Maharashtra came up with a figure of 1.

The problem was that once the right price had been paid, the timelines suggested an acquisition process of several years. Since SIAs were required for anything other than a small project, this meant most projects would get stuck. Since the definition of “affected families” included not just land-losers but also those who may have worked in the area at any time three years prior to the acquisition —  these families had to be provided jobs, housing, resettlement allowances —  this pretty much made the land acquisition process unending. Hopefully, with these egregious parts of the act amended or done away with, the government will be able to pass a new LARR Act soon, which could even pave the way for other forms of land acquisition — say, land pooling —  that are acceptable to all concerned.