Land Bill: BJP wants prior consent of farmers for govt projects

Currently no consent is required for land meant for government use

BJP leader Rajnath Singh today demanded changes in many clauses in the Land Acquisition Bill. Opening the discussion on the Bill in the Lok Sabha today Singh demanded uniform consent seeking norms for land acquired for government, private and public private partnership projects.
 

The bill at present seeks prior consent of 80% of affected families for land acquired for private projects and of 70% of affected families for PPP projects. No consent is required for land meant for government use.

 

He said that while the Government has accepted the suggestion of his party to allow leasing of land in place of acquisition the final decision on this has been left to the government rather than to the land owner.

He demanded that the final decision should be in the hands of the land owner on whether he wants to give his land permanently or to lease it to government or private companies.

He also questioned clause 63 in the Bill which forbids the land owner to contest any decision of the state. He called it dangerous and demanded that it be removed. It is against the principle of justice that people can't contest a decision of the state  he said.

 

 

He sought clarification on the definition of public purpose saying the bill leaves it wide open to include anything.

Reflecting the concerns of the industry Singh sought a definite time line for the social impact assessment to assess affected families. He also pointed out the bill provided for SIA and environment impact assessment after the acquisition process starts whereas it should be done before the process.

He also pointed out that the bill while restricting acquisition of multi cropped land has allowed it in another clause. Farm land should not be taken without the consent of farmers he said.

If the government allows farm land to be depleted it would be forced to come up with a farmland conservation law in future as continued acquisition of productive land would lead to food insecurity, he said.

He sought removal of clause 38 which allows government to do away with social impact assessment in any urgent situation. He said this was dangerous and should be done away with or restricted to specific cases.

He also pointed out that the compensation was based on circle rates which would leave farmers shortchanged and deprive them of market rates.

He said that while the bill allows unused land to be returned to farmers the final decision rests with the state. He said the land should be returned to farmers if they return the compensation.