Land Acquisition Bill: Not too long ago, BJP waved same red flags

In the 2013 House debates, this is what the BJP said:

Rajnath Singh in Lok Sabha: Farmer concerns have not been addressed.

“Though this bill has been drafted by the rural development ministry, but I felt the seriousness with which the concerns of the farmers living in villages and the poor should have been addressed, has not been done, whereas there is special focus on cities and industry. I am not against cities and industry… But if the government does not resolve the problems of the extremely sensitive issues of villages, poor and farmers, it could lead to an unimaginable grim situation… After studying the entire bill, I have come to the conclusion that the bill has deviated from its core objective… I want to say no decision on any issue related to land acquisition should be taken in impatience and hurry.”

[related-post]

The bill, Singh says, provides for prior consent of at least 80 per cent of affected families for private companies and 70 per cent for public-private partnership but there is “no such limitation for government projects”.

“I want to ask why you want to give such an uneven playing field? If you want to give a playing field, then for government projects and for non-government projects, give a level-playing field. But if there is any compulsion in front of you, then Mr Minister, what was the problem in keeping the norms of prior consent uniform?”

“Whatever kind of acquisition there is, whether for private companies or for public purpose, special impact assessment and environmental impact assessment should definitely be done.”

“I would like to draw attention to clause 9 of the bill — urgency provision has come in. The most dangerous provision is urgency provision… This the real problem of villages, the biggest danger — urgency provision. Under this, there will be no special impact Assessment, no environmental impact assessment. Mr Minister, how to resolve this problem, I want your clarification on it since I know the maximum disputes in villages are because of urgency provision.”

“… When will the special impact assessment and environmental impact assessment begin? From your bill, it seems that this would be done after the process of land acquisition begins. But it should happen before. SIA should be conducted before the process of land acquisition begins… should be time-bound.”

(The land acquisition ordinance of the current BJP-led government has included five new categories of projects — projects for defence and defence production, rural infrastructure including rural electrification, affordable housing and housing for the poor, industrial corridors as well as infrastructure and social infrastructure projects, including PPPs wherein the ownership continues to vest with the government, where SIA and consent will not be needed).

Singh also opposed acquisition of multi-crop land — under the ordinance, multi-crop land can be acquired without justification, whereas the 2013 Act had made it a matter of last resort.

“I want to suggest that the bill be implemented with complete retrospective effect… Because several matters are still stuck.”
His government has narrowed down the scope of the retrospective clause, reducing the number of beneficiaries. The ordinance limits the application of the clause to only those cases were the delay is not due to litigation. It amends Section 24 (2) to exclude time spent under litigation where a stay order has been passed.

Sushma Swaraj, then Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha: Rural Development Minister Jairam Ramesh has put in “honest effort” to evolve a consensus.

“…I want to accept that the kind of labour and honest effort that rural development minister Jairam Ramesh has put in evolving consensus on the bill, I want to appreciate it.”

She said the amendment she proposed had been accepted by the government, with some dilution.

Chandan Mitra in Rajya Sabha: “No serious issues” with “well-intentioned bill”.

“Sir, I have no serious issues with the bill because frankly, it is an improvement on the 2007 bill which actually was based on a report of the rural development standing committee of that time, of which I was a member for six years…”

His concerns include ensuring development of wasteland and giving that priority for acquisition, and prevention of “misuse of infrastructure building” while ensuring livelihood security for the farmer.

“Finally, I am glad that the honourable minister is bringing some amendments which take care of a few lacunae in the bill… Sir, I would like to say that we are all together in this. This is in the interest of the country.”

Ravi Shankar Prasad in Rajya Sabha: Balance farmer interests with that of industry.

“One important thing I want to say is farmers should get their right, they should get appropriate compensation for land and those who are displaced should be rehabilitated. But Mr Minister, you also understand that in this country, wealth is important, industry is important and investment should come in. I am sure you don’t have this impression that this law becomes an instrument of disincentive for investment and industry.”

“In clauses 29, 30, 32 of this legislation, you have provided for the farmer getting good market value, but there is no provision to ensure he gets it within the timeframe… And if they don’t get at least monetary compensation in time, then we want to know what arrangements have you made for action against officials.”