Remove land law flaws
This refers to the report “Govt may agree to change some land Bill provisions” (March 10). There is a lot of noise around the controversial land acquisition law amendment Bill. The land acquisition law should have a provision on compensation for acquiring land from the owners—instead of cash, the party acquiring the land should give the owners another piece of land elsewhere. This will put to rest all the controversies surrounding land acquisition. The owner will not feel that only the acquiring party will benefit from an increase in the cost of land—the owner will also benefit if there is any such increase. Also, acquiring agrarian land for non-agricultural purposes is not good for food security. It is ironical that there is a Food Security Act, but even the fertile land can be acquired for industrial purposes or other. Why farmers or land owners are excluded from the debate on this controversial law? The Nalanda University saga is a glaring example of a white elephant—and it has been built on the land acquired from farmers. It is strange that actresses and cricketers asking for land to start cricket academy and dance schools get land from the government, at the place of their choice, and the poor and hapless farmers are left to fend for themselves, after they lose their land for one project or the other—whether private or public. Who cares if the project built on the land acquired from farmers becomes a white elephant? A well-known corporate house acquired land in West Bengal for manufacturing cars, but the project failed to materialise, and the acquired land is still in the possession of the company. A late actress was given land to start a classical dance school, and she was not able to run the school, and she mooted sale of land. Why favour the chosen few? Will the government learn any lesson in land acquisition from such episodes? Actors can very well start dance schools in their bungalows and they have money to buy the land. Why insist on land from the government? If I am a land owner, does it mean I can remain the owner as long as somebody is not interested in my land? Is this not unfair?
Deendayal M Lulla
Mumbai
RBI’s right rate-cut stand
RBI has honoured its promise and cut key policy repo rate by 25 basis points on March 4, soon after the Budget proposals were tabled in Parliament. Rate cut has been made twice in less than two months, outside the standard policy cycle—that goes to indicate that any policy action has to be an anticipatory one. The kind of structural adjustments effected and proposed—reflected both in the Economic Survey, as a prelude and in the Budget proposals subsequently—definitely provides some room for RBI to go ahead with the rate cuts. The quantum of rate cut, however, has raised certain apprehensions. It is clear that RBI would want to tread cautiously as before, not let the situation go out of control and consolidate the gains as the task on hand is reasonably getting closer to set goals. That is a good thinking on the part of RBI to ensure certainty, transparency, and ease in achieving them.
Umashankar Srinivasan, Nagpur
Please send your letters to:
The Editor,The Financial Express, 9&10 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002
or e-mail at: feletters@expressindia.com or fax at Delhi: 91-11-23702044