August 29, 2013
Sudip Bandopadhyay speaks on Land Acquisition Bill, 2011
Mr. Chairman, Sir, I rise to speak on the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill, 2011. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is an Act which was launched by the British Rulers and it was actually a draconian law. How this draconian law was applied on the farmers of Nandigram and Singur in West Bengal and how the farmers fought under the leadership of Mamata Banerjee, that is a history. The way their land was acquired, Without any intimation, brutal attack was launched, firing was done. Many farmers lost their lives.
Sir, I attended two meetings which were convened by Shri Jairam Ramesh. I have no hesitation to say that he took all his efforts to make it a Bill acceptable to all. He circulated some notes of his own and few of his observations. The copies of them were also sent to us and we have gone through them. I will use his paper also.
In the context of this British-period Land Acquisition Act of 1894, Justice G.S. Singhvi of Supreme Court observed that “the Act has become a fraud” and another Bench of Supreme Court has also observed by commenting on this 1894 Act that “this Act does not provide for rehabilitation of persons displaced from their lands, although by such compulsory acquisition, their livelihood gets affected. To say the least, the Act has become outdated and needs to be replaced at the earliest by a fair, reasonable and rational enactment in tune with the constitutional provisions, particularly Article 300A of the Constitution.” So, it was a necessity to change that Act and it is good enough that the present Bill is now in front of us.
Sir, the Government needs land and the private companies and industrial houses also need land. Naturally, the Government needs land for construction of schools, roads, bridges, hospitals or even for some PPP-model projects while private companies and industrial houses need land for setting up industries, but the question is what the policy for acquiring lands would be. We have seen with our practical experience in West Bengal, where we succeeded to remove the 34-year old Left Front Government, how the farmers fight for their land when they are attacked. They feel helpless that there is nobody to guide them, to stand by them and to protect them while they are only politically exploited at the time of votes. It could have been better if this Bill had been introduced much earlier.
What we strongly feel is that we want an assurance from the hon. Minister that the land of the farmers will never be acquired by force. We are totally opposed to the forceful acquisition and occupancy of land of the farmer and of the land-owners. We want this assurance from the hon. Minister that it will never be allowed to happen because normally, whenever acquisition is done, it is done by kicking on the stomach of the farmers, which we will never allow, and we will stand very firmly by them.
Sir, the Standing Committee had made 13 recommendations in regard to this Bill. Out of those 13 recommendations, 11 have been inducted into this Bill while two of them have not been included. We are for those two recommendations also, which the Government has excluded. We are 100 per cent in favour of those two recommendations. What are those two recommendations which the Government refused to take up? One of those two recommendations is about restriction on multi-crop land acquisition left to the State. In response to the recommendation made by the Standing Committee that since States better understand the peculiar and unique circumstances in their region, the fixation of the cap should be left to them, an amendment has been made to allow the State Governments to fix the limits on the acquisition of multi-crop land. Secondly, in response to the recommendation made by the Standing Committee that since States better understand the peculiar and unique circumstances in their region, the fixation of the cap should be left to them, an amendment has been made to allow the State Governments to fix the limits on the acquisition of agricultural land. We urge that let the total Report of the Standing Committee — by not excluding these two recommendations — be accepted by the hon. Minister by which it can be the most acceptable Bill for this Session.
I would like to further add that the Government has categorically said that 80 per cent land will be acquired by the private companies in case of their projects. In case of Government, it will be 70:30 and in case of private companies it will be 80:20. Why is it so? We are totally of the opinion that this deal should be between the private companies, land owners and farmers. Even the price should be fixed in consultation with both of them, and the Government should not play the role of the mediator. It should be very categorical, and it should be very positive. Once this system is adopted, then the Government can come all-out to help whatever projects anybody intends to make over there. Therefore, we firmly believe that 100 per cent land is to be purchased by the private group on their own.
Multi-crop land is to be protected. Industries can be set up on either monocrop land or on the barren land. In many States, there is no continuity of land, which is, getting more than 100 acres of land at a stretch. Therefore, we propose that small and middle industries can be a very viable alternative over the big and giant industries as continuity of land is not available in every State. So, you will have to keep in your mind that land is the asset of the rural people, and it is the asset of the farmers. We should not acquire it by any means, which will cause them and send them to uncertainty.
We know that safeguards for the tribal communities and other disadvantaged groups have been mentioned. We want them to be protected with all steps. But what would be the compensation? The compensation mentioned is that the owner of the land / affected family be provided with job to the family; housing facilities; land for land, but normally, it is seen that whatever is mentioned with good intention is not properly implemented.
So, the State-level Monitoring Committees have to be activated. Certainly, some observations are to be kept from the Department for which I do not think that any National-level Monitoring Committee is at all necessary. But we totally support land bank, and there should be one land map also for every State. What do the land maps normally do? They demarcate that this is my State and this part of the State is demarcated as industry-proposed zones and these areas can be demarcated as agricultural-oriented zones.
If any person comes with a good motive, then the map can be placed before him to decide about his land. It can be shown that these are the areas that will make for industry and these are the farming areas, and multi-crop land will never be handed over to any private companies. So, the State Governments can take it if they feel it necessary. This should be a guide-map for the concerned State also.
Sir, we reaffirm our commitment to the principles to protect the interests of the farmers. We are also in favour of the industries. We believe that principles cannot be changed by debates or negotiations. We firmly believe that if these changes are included, if these additions are taken care of, and if our proposals are accepted, certainly, this Bill could be acceptable to all in this House.
Sir, I began my speech by saluting the martyrs of Singur and Nandigram. They did their best, and the Government of India also keenly felt that this Bill, certainly, was the need of the hour.
We certainly believe that when, with an open mind, transparent outlook and foresightedness, Shri Jairam Ramesh is coming out with this Bill, let this Bill be acceptable to all.
We again reassure and reaffirm our stand that this ratio of 80:20 must be abolished. One hundred per cent means, it should be one hundred per cent. When 100 per cent of the land is to be acquired by a private company, how will the Government play the role of a mediator?
We support the Bill, if our amendments are accepted. Thank you.
