My suggestions on LandBill e-mailed to Joint Parliamentary Committee

To

Joint Secretary(RS),

Lok Sabha Secretariat,

Room No. 328,

Third Floor,

Parliament House Annexe,

New Delhi-110001 

Sub: Suggestions on the The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Second Amendment Bill, 2015) (“Land Acquisition Bill, 2015”)

Sir,

Any law on land acquisition should address the following issues:

1. It should make land available speedily for development
2. Land-owner has sentimental attachment to land and it needs to be respected.

3.Land-owner’s economic insecurity that  compensation is a one-time affair and cannot make up for loss of source of regular income in the form of land
4.Compensation should be fair and adequate

Shortcomings in the 2013 Act which the “Land Acquisition Bill, 2015” does not try to address/remedy

uAt present , the 2013 Act has 104 sections on compulsory acquisition and just one solitary section (section 104) on lease.

uLong-lease of land of 99 years gives the owner the psychological satisfaction of owning the land and assured regular income. After-all lumpsum compensation tends to get spent and land-owners end up being left with nothing.

uHowever, the drawback with a lease is it is a contract and can be terminated by owner by paying damages and lease can be terminated. This makes it problematic to lease land for developmental and infrastructure projects.

uHowever, section 104 dismisses lease in three lines instead of addressing the limitations of the lease and taking advantage of its positives

uSection 104 just gives the Government an option to take land on lease instead of acquiring it.It doesnt state whether a land-owner can be compelled to part with his  land for 99 years for regular rentals(economic security) while retaining the title to the land(pyschological comfort) and  government getting uninterrupted possession for 99 years.

Suggestions to improve the “Land Acquisition Bill, 2015”

The “Land Acquisition Bill, 2015” should incorporate the following features:

(A)Allow “Quasi-Lease”

uMake enabling provisions to allow the “quasi-lease” mode of compulsory acquisition.
uMake “quasi-lease” the preferred mode of acquiring land and regular acquisition should be resorted to only where quasi-lease is not practicable or is not possible

u "Quasi-lease " is a mode of compulsory acquisitions which will have hybrid characteristics of both -acquisition and lease.

uThis form of compulsory acquisition called “Quasi-lease” shall have the following features:
1.The title remains with the land-owner. The landowner divested of possession but not title(psychological comfort)
2.The land-owner gets regular annual rentals (assured regular rental to land-owner )
3.The Government gets uninterrupted possession for upto 99 years(land for development)

uHow does a quasi-lease acquisition differ from  a lease? Lease is contractual and with consent and can be terminated. In quasi-lease, land is taken not necessarily with owner's consent and irrevocable for upto 99 years.

uIn quasi-lease, owner divested of only possession of land by law. In regular acquisition, owner divested of both title and possession for lumpsum compensation.

uQuasi-lease is based on the principle that when state uses force of law, it should be to the minimum extent required. You require the land, take it by force of law . But at least address the owner's sentimental attachment to land and his economic need for assured regular income.

uQuasi-lease should not involve formalities like consent clause and SIA while regular acquisition should be subject to these formalities

uNeedless to say Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) provisions should apply to both “quasi-lease” and regular acquisition”

(B)Compensation for farmland acquired should be based on market prices of non-agricultural land (NA land)

uIn the 2013 Act, market value is based on registered sale deeds in which sale consideration may be understated to evade taxes.

uFurther, agricultural land can be used for non-agricultural purposes only when Change in Land Use (CLU) approvals (also called NA permissions) are obtained. So when farm land is sold without  NA permission, it can be used for agriculture only.

uNA lands command higher market prices than farmland

uNow Govt never acquires farmland for farming. Farmer feels considerable heartburn when his land is acquired for Non-farming (NA) purposes by Govt but he is paid market value applicable to a farmland

uIt is only fair to compensate the farmer based on the footing that land acquired is not farmland but is NA Land. Australia follows the principle "the Market Value should be based on best use land can be put to and not necessarily its current use" It is suggested that section 28 of the 2013 Act may be amended to incorporate this provision. Section 28 of the 2013 Act deals with  parameters for determining market vale of land .. Para 7 of section 28 says “seventhly, any other ground which may be in the interest of equity, justice and beneficial to affected families”. Alternative to amending section 28 to provide compensation for farmland based on NA land prices is to issue a circular under the seventh para of section 28 to all District Collectors