The 2013 Land Bill: A Whirlwind Tour of Provisions for Farmers and Its Implications
Recent discussions about the Land Acquisition Bill have sparked debates and controversies. While some claim that the bill is anti-farmer, it's important to carefully examine its provisions and the implications for farmers. This article aims to provide a detailed analysis of the 2013 bill and address the concerns raised by certain opposition parties.
Comparing the 1894 and 2013 Land Acquisition Acts
The 1894 Land Acquisition Act was a significant piece of legislation, but it faced numerous criticisms. The 2013 Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) Bill 2013 (RRTCTR) was introduced to address many of the shortcomings of the earlier act. This bill introduced substantial changes and promised to provide better protection and better compensation for affected farmers.
Key Provisions of the 2013 Bill
The 2013 bill
Compensation for Loss of Land
For a typical rural household owning an average of 3 acres of land, the act aims to compensate for the loss of annual average per capita income. Specifically, the bill provides the following: Four times the market value of the land. An upfront payment of Rs.136,000 ($3,000) for subsistence, transportation, and resettlement allowances. An additional entitlement of a job to a family member or a lump sum payment of Rs.500,000 ($11,000) or a monthly annuity of Rs.24,000 ($5,500) for 20 years, adjusted for inflation.
The bill grants these options as legal rights to the affected landowner family, ensuring that they have a choice in how they receive the compensation.
Rehabilitation and Resettlement
The bill also includes provisions for rehabilitation and resettlement. Farmers are entitled to a house with a minimum of 50 square meters in plinth area. Additional benefits are available if the land is resold without development and used for urbanization purposes.
Other Provisions
The bill includes several other provisions that are beneficial to farmers, including:
A special category of projects to be fast-tracked, such as industrial corridors, defense production, rural infrastructure, electrification, housing for the poor, and public-private partnership (PPP) projects. Clarity on the rehabilitation and settlement process. Preventing the misuse of land through provisions that require land to be used within 5 years, or face return to the owners.Issues with the New Ordinance
However, the new ordinance, enacted in 2020, has faced criticism for several reasons:
PPPs and Ambiguity
The ordinance removes the clause that requires land to be used within 5 years or it must be returned to the owner. The ambiguity about the Public-Private Partnership (PPP) mode further complicates the process, allowing for forced acquisition of land under the guise of development.
Land and Development
A recent report from the Government Audit Committee (GAG) revealed that out of 46,000 hectares of industrialized land, only 38% is still underutilized. This unused land is mortgaged to developers for the purpose of availing loans.
sector-specific Changes
The bill also removes the requirement for social impact assessment for certain sectors, including industrial corridors, defense production, and rural infrastructure.
Conclusion
In summary, the 2013 Land Acquisition Bill was a progressive step towards better compensation and rehabilitation for farmers, while the new ordinance seeks to revert to previous practices. The bill aimed to strike a balance between the development needs of society and the interests of farmers. However, the new ordinance poses several challenges and raises concerns about the misuse of land and the need for clear definitions and regulations.