September 5, 2013
D. Bandyopadhyay speaks on Land Acquisition Bill, 2013
Thank you, Madam. I rise to oppose the Bill though I admit it has many notable features. With notable features, there are many concepts of the old draconian Bill which was totally inhuman, the hon. Minister has tried to put a human face. For that I am grateful to him and I congratulate him. But our opposition is mainly on the whole concept of eminent domain. Eminent domain, Madam, was a royal prerogative. Notionally all land belongs to the king. Individual title holders are absolute owners but the King, now State, is the notional paramount owner of the land. Therefore, if the King, now the State, wants that land for his own purpose, then it can appropriate the land by paying compensation because it is the recognized right. One good point about this Bill which I oppose but I support the content. I am supporting the good point, but I am opposing the main point.
The concept of owner in original Bill was not required. But for the loss of property and for the compulsory character of the acquisition, compensation is paid. Somehow or the other, the owner always feels that since he cannot sell it in the open market, he is being cheated. If ‘cheated’ is the wrong word, he is being betrayed. This comprehensive Bill is not the only law on the land acquisition. There are 13 other laws as mentioned in the Schedule IV of this Bill itself. Now my point is why there should be such multiplicity of law on the same subject. I know the Minister of Rural Development, in-charge of this Bill, cannot control all those 13 Ministries. But, at the time Government as a whole should take a view that there are 13 Acts regarding the acquisition. Each Department wants a Bill of its own. So, when you are having a comprehensive Bill covering all aspects giving a human face to it, why should we have all those Acts? I would request the hon. Minister to take a view collectively in the Government so that you have only one Bill or maximum another Bill if there is a specialized thing. I would like to commend the Minister for inserting Chapter 3, entitled ‘special Provisions to Safeguard Food Security’. Large-scale acquisition involving large scale displacement of the rural population creates a great adverse effect on agriculture. Therefore, the point that you want to have the social impact assessment is a very welcome feature. But I am afraid that the limit suggested under clause 10 has not been properly defined. (Timebell) I am coming back. Another good feature of the Bill is the social audit which I have already talked about. Now I come to the main thing. So far the acquiring authority is to follow the policy of rehabilitation and resettlement. I congratulate the Minister for bringing that in the statute book to give him rehabilitation and resettlement. In spite of good features, we oppose the Bill because this draconian law should not be used by profit making institutions, owners of such entities who believe in the efficiency of market for efficient allocation of resources. That applies to the principle: When they operate in the land market, as they are operating in the labour market, as they are operating in the resource market, or, in whatever market they are, if there are imperfections in those markets and they operate and make money, why they should be given privilege under this Bill to acquire land forcefully.
Thank you very much, Madam.
