The IC Centre of Governance discussed the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill and the Resettlement and Rehabilitation Bill introduced in Parliament at a recent meeting chaired by Justice JS Verma, former Chief Justice of India. PRS Legislative Research made a presentation of the issues involved and the salient points requiring consideration.
The two Bills have several welcome features. For the first time, the contours of ‘public purpose’ in the context of land acquisition are being delineated. For the first time, the subject of rehabilitation is sought to be given a statutory foundation. Till now it has been confined to several different policy statements of the state governments and acquiring organizations.
While the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 2007 proposes to clarify the meaning and extent of public purpose and provide for improvement in attendant administrative machinery, the Resettlement and Rehabilitation Bill, 2007 seeks to create new administrative structures for resettlement and rehabilitation of ‘affected persons’ at the central and state levels. However, some modifications and clarifications are necessary for the objectives to be fully achieved.
While acquisition of land for public purpose and attendant displacement in the colonial regime was claimed as a right of the State under eminent domain, the R & R Bill must now accept that the State has an unconditional duty to resettle and rehabilitate all the affected citizens so that they are able to maintain, if not improve, the present standard and way of living. It should not be seen as an act of benevolence or as a welfare/relief measure. The modern concept is of sustainable development, wherein all development should be ‘rights’-based with the displaced being treated as stakeholders entitled to share as beneficiaries of the development project.
The Statement of Objects and reasons mentions minimizing displacement, protecting livelihoods and improving living conditions, but the Bill does not make them mandatory. Rehabilitation involves replacing the lost economic assets, rebuilding the community systems that have been affected adversely and taking care of the psychological trauma of forced alienation from livelihood.
Therefore, the provisions should be free from ambiguity and conditionality. Rehabilitation should not be limited to the extent permitted by external circumstances and subject to conditions. The discretionary powers vested in the state and the numerous conditions mentioned in the Bill may result in unenforceability of certain provisions.
The R&R Bill equates involuntary displacement caused by planned exercise of coercive powers of the State with displacement caused by chance natural calamity.
While the policy document requires residency of three years, the Bill requires residency of five years. This needs to be corrected.
Similarly, the policy document mentions employment guarantee for five years, whereas the Bill does not make any mention of this. There is ‘gender inequality’ in the Bill in that it makes provisions for adult sons but not adult daughters. The Bill does not provide safeguards against double or triple displacement, which has happened in the past in some cases. There is no time-frame for rehabilitation.
Absence of penalization of responsible officials is another lacuna in the Bill. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 specifically mentions that any person obstructing the process of acquisition is liable to imprisonment or fine.
With a view to improve the Bills, a number of suggestions were made (see tables).
