NGOs, farmer bodies want explanation on land bill amendments

Representatives of various NGOs and farmer bodies appearing before a parliamentary panel today demanded that the government should explain its stand on the contentious amendments to the land bill saying it will help end ambiguity in the minds of the common man.
The meeting also saw fire works when an official of a company related to building construction appeared before The Joint Committee on the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Second Amendment) Bill, 2015, headed by SS Ahluwalia.
As it met for the fifth day to hear the views of stakeholders, some of the Opposition party members strongly objected to the panel calling "private individuals with their own agenda" for the meeting, sources said.

One of the members questioned why they should listen to views of people with "vested interests", saying that the particular company had interest in building construction activities, the sources added.
Members said they have no objection to individuals appearing before the parliamentary panel who represent credible organisations, but private individuals cannot be allowed to push their "agenda" before it.
The panel had called representatives from organisations like Foundation for Democratic Reforms, Bhoomi Adhikar Andolan, Sree Samayaa, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, PRS Legislative Research and an individual Dhanush Kumar.

While the first two submissions went on normally, members objected when the Managing Director of Sree Samayaa, a private limited company from Mumbai, began expressing his views in favour of the contentious Bill.

The MD of Sree Samayaa was cut short with Congress, Trinamool Congress, Left and BJD members being the ones who opposed him.
Amid various statements about the government's future course of action on the land bill, the Opposition members of the panel had rued last week that several Union ministers are speaking on the land acquisition bill but their views lack unanimity.
They had also pointed out that while some are open to amending the bill replacing the ordinance pending in Parliament, others have opposed any changes.