Benefits extended to 13 Central Acts under new land bill: Govt

Under fire from the Opposition over the land bill, government today defended amendments to the 2013 law, saying that benefits extended to families whose land is acquired will now be applicable to 13 Central Acts which were earlier excluded.
Rural Development Minister Birender Singh informed the Rajya Sabha today that the 2013 law provides that widows, divorcees and women deserted by families should be treated as separate families for the purpose of of benefits of compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement including mandatory employment.
"In the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) Bill, pending in Lok Sabha and being examined by a joint parliamentary panel, these benefits of compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement including mandatory employment are extended to 13 Central Acts mentioned in the 4th schedule of the 2013 Act," he said.

Rehabilitation and resettlement and compensation provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 are now applicable to the 13 existing central pieces of legislation including the Coal Bearing Areas Acquisition and Development Act, 1957, the National Highways Act, 1956 and the Land Acquisition (Mines) Act, 1885 after government brought an ordinance in December last year to amend the 2013 land law.
According to the amendments, the mandatory "consent" clause and Social Impact Assessment (SIA) will not be applicable if the land is acquired for five purposes including national security, defence, rural infrastructure including electrification, industrial corridors and building social infrastructure including PPP where ownership of land continues to be vested with the government.

However, the compensation and rehabilitation and resettlement packages will be applicable as per the new Land Acquisition Act for acquiring land for these purposes.
As per the changes brought in the ordinance, multi-crop irrigated land can also be acquired for these purposes.
These amendments came under opposition fire and the government was forced to refer the bill -- brought to replace the ordinance -- to a joint parliamentary committee.