![]() Indian Express |
![]() Express India |
![]() Screen |
![]() Loksatta |
![]() Express Cricket |
![]() Kashmir Live |
![]() Biz Publications |




Land development, as wind turbine leader Suzlon is discovering in Maharashtra, is confronted with a peculiar problem. Once developed, land—any piece of land—begins to look a lot more valuable to people than it did when it was just a tract of soil. In Satara and Sangli, regions that make little news except when forced into ad campaigns featuring Sportsmen from mofussil India, agitated villagers have forced dozens of wind turbines to shut down. This is part of a mass protest against what the villagers allege were unfair land acquisition transactions done with them in the past for the project to be commissioned. They are demanding what they think now, in retrospect, would be fair value for the property on which the turbines stand. As anyone who buys and sells assets can tell you, a sale deed executed between two parties by mutual consent at any given point in time, has legal sanctity. Sellers cannot turn up later and claim that they were “cheated” because the value is now higher. In this case, Suzlon does not own the land itself. By its business model for Maharashtra, it acquires land through middlemen, organises the relevant permits, sets up windmills (its core business), and sells them to clients who are in the power generation business. The law, most likely, is on Suzlon’s side.
Despite that, the disruption must make the company and others acquiring land reassess their modus operandi. For one, ridding processes of middlemen is always advisable in matters as politically sensitive as land acquisition. Villagers are easily incited by rabble-rousers who portray all businesses/developers as cheats, and it is best if negotiations are done by Companies directly, and by representatives who can be trusted to explain the proposal properly. Second, it is helpful if displaced villagers have a continuing stake in the project in some form or the other—electricity supply for their hutments, for example. Third, in large acquisitions, adherence to the Centre’s 2007 resettlement & rehabilitation policy, is a must. Development is too important to let perceptions of gross injustice come in the way, and it is in businesses own interest to preempt mass mobilisations and unrest. Satara, however, is not Nandigram, and Suzlon’s business model is quite attractive in an electricity deficient country. Some precaution nonetheless could stand it in good stead.
Most Read Articles![]() |
![]() |
![]() |

© 2008: Indian Express Newspapers (Mumbai) Ltd. All rights reserved throughout the world