|
| M J Antony: Heartless against faceless | | The more powerless the man whose land is taken over, the more serious the matter, says the Supreme Court |
| M J Antony / New Delhi Oct 14, 2009, 00:01 IST |
|
The rate of compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act has been one of the constant themes in the judgments delivered by the Supreme Court in recent weeks. One among them stands out for the inconsiderate and ungenerous attitude of the state authorities when it comes to compulsory takeover of land that belongs to the poor and inarticulate landholders.
The appeal comes from Orissa, which has one of the largest numbers of tribal and economically-backward population. The state government pursued one such hapless land owner from 1975 onwards with litigation up to the Supreme Court with what the judgment called “preposterous” arguments (State of Orissa vs Chitrasen Bhoi). The government did not even stop at the high court which rejected its arguments. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has only sent the case back to the land acquisition collector for an “expeditious” decision. The landowner thus is back in the hands of the executive after years of long fight.
Central to the dispute is a provision in the Land Acquisition Act which grants a right to landowners who are poor and backward to seek re-determination of the compensation for their land (Section 28-A). If the affluent owners of the neighbouring land move the authorities or the civil courts to get higher compensation and succeed, the small landholder who did not go to the authorities for want of information or resources can ask for the same rate for his land. This rule was introduced through an amendment to the Land Acquisition Act in 1984. This benefit is not available to ordinary landholders. The legislature carved out an exception in the form of Section 28-A and made a special provision to grant some relief to a particular class of society, namely, the poor, illiterate, ignorant and inarticulate people. It is made only for the ‘little Indians’, the judgment remarked.
The state government acquired the land of Bhoi for public purposes, one among them was setting up a fish farm. What he was given was Rs 2,500 per acre. He accepted it without demur. But the owners of the neighbouring lands did not accept this rate and moved the acquisition authorities. Then the rate was raised to Rs10,000 per acre. Soon thereafter, Bhoi sought the same market value from the collector. His claim was rejected. He appealed to the high court and won. The state government moved the Supreme Court and lost. The tenacity of the landowner was matched only by ruthlessness of the government.
If the government was not familiar with the plight of the displaced persons, it should have at least been aware of the Supreme Court judgments on this subject. Soon after the introduction of the amendment in 1984, the court underlined its objects and reasons in Mewa Ram vs State of Haryana (1987) by stating that it was meant to benefit “inarticulate and poor people who by reason of their poverty and ignorance have failed to take advantage of the right of reference to the civil court”.
This view was reiterated in Scheduled Caste Cooperative Land Owning Society Ltd vs Union of India (1991). Again, in Babua Ram vs State of Uttar Pradesh (1995), the Supreme Court said: “Legislature made a discriminatory policy between the poor and inarticulate as one class of persons to whom the benefit of Section 28-A was to be extended and comparatively affluent who had taken advantage of the reference … It is true that the legislature intended to relieve hardship to the poor, indigent and inarticulate interested persons who generally failed to avail of the right of reference due to poverty or ignorance or avoidance of expropriation.”
It was in the teeth of such clear and assertive pronouncements that the Orissa government carried on the litigation for nearly three decades. This attitude of the rulers cast doubt on the efficacy of any benevolent law made with the best of intentions. In Om Prakash vs State of UP (1998), the court had warned that compulsory taking of a man’s property was a serious matter and “smaller the man, the more serious the matter.”
A new bill on land acquisitions to replace the 115-year-old Act is mired in legal, social and political controversies. Much of recent displacement and impoverishment of people can be traced to flawed laws and their implementation. But what the Bhoi case shows is the mindset of the rulers who will invoke technicalities to drive small landholders to a dead-end. And call for military solutions to consequent social unrest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Read Business news in |  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertisements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Content Guide
