Panel report gives Land Bill a realistic image: Jairam Ramesh

Interview with Union rural development minister

Union rural development minister Jairam Ramesh has rejected the Parliamentary Standing Committee’s suggestion to delete a clause in the Land Acquisition Bill allowing the government to acquire land for public-private-partnership (PPP) projects. In an interview with Sreelatha Menon, Ramesh said there was no question of going back on the basic principles. Edited excerpts:

What are the points in the report you agree with?
I agree with all recommendations regarding giving more powers to Gram Sabhas or Panchayats and giving more flexibility to states. Also, wherever there is a recommendation to protect tribal areas.

Why did you say the committee made your work easier?
It has made our job easier. For against many of its demand, our Bill even looks realistic to those who were critical of us. It has given our Bill a realistic image.

 

Will you go back on what is already there in the Bill like the 80:20 formula for acquisition? The industry finds it unrealistic and states have opposed it. Will states prevail here?
There is no question of going back on the basic principles.

What about the pending projects? The industry says many companies have paid compensation and now, they would be required to do it all over again...
We will accept all that are realistic.

You said you were glad about the committee’s position on the 16 central Acts outside the Bill...
The committee rightly says these acts should be amended to allow compensation in accordance with the Bill. Frankly, it is the right thing to do. Who would disagree that wherever land is acquired, compensation should be given? That is non-negotiable. We can negotiate what a particular ministry wants to offer as compensation. But compensation is a must. The defence ministry has already agreed. In fact, compensation is non-negotiable even in private purchases.

The industry complains it is being overburdened with compensation demands, even in cases where land has been bought..
The industry is complaining too much. Wherever private companies buy land, there has to be a minimum package of price and resettlement and rehabilitation. In fact, nine out of 10 private purchases are exploitative and it is a blessing that the government steps in at many places. If the government had not been there, there would have been complete chaos in many projects requiring large tracts of land.

The industry is concerned about the exclusion of multi-cropped land in the bill and now, of all agricultural land in the report...
We have to examine that recommendation. But there is no going back from what is already there.

If states reject it?
We only need the Cabinet to agree on it.

You said you didn’t agree with the committee on leaving out PPP and private projects from the definition of public purpose. The industry feels you have not defined “public goods and services” for which the government will acquire land...
It is given very clearly in the definition of public purpose.