The National Advisory Council (NAC) has run into a problem with its land acquisition proposal. The Council has realised that land acquisition being a state subject, the Centre cannot play more than an advisory role in the entire process.
This means the elaborate proposal drawn up by the NAC will be of no use unless each state agrees to it. The alternative is for them to agree to a constitutional amendment that shifts land from the State list to the Central list.
More than a week after the Council submitted its recommendation that created a huge stir in the industry, state governments and every other section concerned with the issue, NAC members are now divided on how to get over this obstacle.
In its recommendation, the NAC had suggested that in cases of large-scale land acquisition, instead of the industry it should be the government which should acquire land. It has given a ballpark figure to measure the scale ? where more than 400 families are involved, government should acquire the land. It has accordingly put up the essentials of a draft Bill for the central government to flesh out and get the Parliament nod.
Congress party leader Sonia Gandhi and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh have both said they aim to pass a revised land acquisition Bill in Parliament’s monsoon session.
But after realising that its recommendations and the central law could remain a dead letter unless the states are brought on board, the NAC has decided to seek the views of the law ministry in this regard.
?Our discussions on land acquisition have concluded but there is one legal hitch of acquisition in case of displacement of 400 or more families. Our viewpoint is that it is desirable but not constitutionally tenable if the government acquires land as it is a state subject,? NAC member NC Saxena told FE.
The NAC recommendations have already divided the industry. While Ficci has opposed it saying the industry should buy land directly from landowners based on market prices, CII has endorsed the NAC line, saying the government cannot abdicate its responsibilities.
The issue is complex. The state governments too are divided on the plans to adopt. States like Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal, both in the middle of strong land related disputes, have said it is the industry which should negotiate land purchases.
Since each state is free to draw up its own norms, or choose to seek guidance from the central government, the land Bill to be cleared by Parliament based on the NAC draft is likely to be an exercise in tokenism. The alternative of shifting land acquisition from state to the central list is constitutionally complex and may not be tenable.
Within the Council, Saxena has argued that land acquisition by government on behalf of the industry should be restricted to only those cases which are in tribal and backward areas. The bargaining power of the landowners in those areas is weak and they are not adequately informed to take a mature decision. In such areas, if land acquisition is not done by the government then private companies may exploit the unorganised, small and particularly tribal cultivators and pay them a pittance. The alternative view, held by the other two members of the working group ? Aruna Roy and Harsh Mander ? was to explicitly exclude acquisition for a project that has ?as its primary objective the benefit of a private interest’, irrespective of the region.
?Our recommendations have not gone to the government and we don’t know if the government has drafted any Bill, hence the consultations with the law ministry,? Saxena said.
The NAC is, however, unanimous on its proposal on six times the registered price of land for farmers and at least 10 days of minimum wages per month for the next 20 years as part of the compensation package. The recommendation asking for 25% capital appreciation on land in case of a resale within 33 years of acquisition, has also met with consensus in the NAC.