Journal of Land and Rural Studies

This article² explores key issues in the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARR Act) read with recent changes proposed by the central government. The LARR Act has to be read in the context of political contestation and changing political winds, the spate of decisions by the Supreme Court in the run up to the enactment and the need for ‘balancing’ multiple viewpoints. In such context, the twin categories—federal and judicial—become prominent. The nature of the LARR Act’s response to both will determine its continued existence and significance. This article examines legal dimensions of issues such as ‘Eminent Domain’ and ‘public purpose’, R&R, compensation, safeguards for project-affected families and other relevant processes. The article asks larger legal and political questions regarding land acquisition within constitutional debates pertaining to the LARR Act’s implications for federalism and a detailed analysis of recent pronouncements of the Supreme Court. The article also looks at potential scenarios, and in particular, possible consequences of the enactment for future urbanisation patterns in India.

The question of land acquisition in India hinges on the nature of land as property, the nature of collective land rights, the nature of individual property rights on land and the nature of the state as expropriator for specific collectivities or benefactor for public good. Defining public use or common good has historically been one of the more protracted contestations between the state and individual/communal ownership of land. Rule-making for acquisition of land and appropriate compensation marks a second contestation, between ‘law’ and ‘justice’, as evidenced both in the colonial law of 1894, and subsequent amendments and legal enactments after independence.

Focusing on two of the most crucial aspects of land acquisition law—ownership and consent, and compensation against acquisition—this article explores how the idea of public good for common purpose has been historically constituted within legislative and juridical frameworks, and how the notion of compensation is closely connected to the contested definition of public good and the definition of ‘community rights’. In probing these issues, I seek to arrive at an understanding of the implications of reciprocal rights and obligations that mutually constitute society and state in India.

The processes of land acquisition (LA) rehabilitation and resettlement (R&R) in India has progressed to a very contentious extent, as conveyed by series of mass protests, non-cooperation of political parties, and impulsion expressed by the present government and corporates for acceptance of the LARR Ordinance, 2015. Any issue under contention is debated with argument, counter-argument, action and counter-actions. Such process evolves a language of rights—the rights demanded by the citizens, especially the project-affected population, different interest-holders and rights recognised by the state. The article maps out the journey of language of rights in the context of multi-faceted issues of LA, development-induced displacement and R&R (LADRR) over last three decades, that is, 1985 to the present. The right’s perspective focuses on three components—characteristics of rights, how rights are derived and role of state and its institutions in recognising and actualising rights. Based on this mapping, the article examines whether there exist some common grounds for actualisation of rights through existing legislative processes for LARR.

Generation of employment is one of the most common justifications for land acquisition. As such, the ‘Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement, 2013’ (RFCTLARR) does not include employment generation in its definition of ‘public purpose’. Section 2(b) (ii) to (vi) RFCTLARR, however, directly or indirectly infers employment generation per se. This article elaborates concerns and challenges regarding ‘formal’ employment generation through examination of employment generation in the various sectors, but notably in manufacturing and urbanisation, the proven messiahs of poverty removal through employment generation. It shows India’s historically skewed pattern of growth and internal contradictions regarding employment through various documents of Planning Commission, The World Bank and of other observers. What comes across clearly is that unless the manufacturing, urbanisation and land acquisition policies complement and support each other, generation of ‘formal’ employment will remain mere wishful thinking. With this approach the article argues that it is time to take ‘formal’ employment generation out of the boot of the land acquisition Special Purpose Vehicle and place it strategically behind the steering wheel.

Land continues to remain important for production and rural livelihoods in developing economies like India. But, globalisation and liberalisation in these economies has brought up land as an important policy issue as various stakeholders lay claims to it as never before. Although India is not a victim of land grab unlike many African and Asian countries, there has been a rush for acquiring and retaining land for various purposes which has led to local level conflicts. This article examines the question of acquisition of land in its scarcity context in India. It attempts to understand the process of land acquisition and the role of the state at various levels, as it is a state (provincial) subject in India. It examines various facets of land acquisition Act for their fairness and equity aspects including the proposed and now withdrawn amendments to it. The article proposes and examines alternative mechanisms and options to manage land resource in a sustainable way and yet avoid land-related conflicts.

India’s constitutional audit institution (CAG of India) has undertaken performance reviews of the land acquisition and rehabilitation process in rapidly industrialising Odisha in last few years. In this article, we combine audit findings on both fronts and pose questions on how audited entity, legislators and communities responded to these audit findings.

Three performance reviews of land acquisition process in Odisha including a comprehensive audit of land acquired for Odisha Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (IDCO) spanning the years between 2001 and 2012 provides insights into lapses committed often by administrators such as land acquisition officers (LAOs), DCs etc. during land acquisition process. Similarly, performance review on rehabilitation of people affected by industrial projects provides insights into lapses in implementing Odisha Resettlement and Rehabilitation (R&R) Policy, 2006. This article argues why activists and researchers need to engage with audit findings and ask crucial questions on the follow up processes on these audit findings.

In Chennai alone, over 21,000 families have already been removed from their primary livelihood area and ghettoised in the peripheral areas of the city like Kannagi Nagar, Semmencherry and Perumbakkam, which are 25 to 30 kilometres from their original habitation. Another 31,912 families are in the process of being removed to these resettlement colonies. The R&R processes adopted by the government for the urban communities have unleashed gross human rights violations including right to adequate housing, food, water, education, health, work/livelihood and security of the person and home. There are no prescribed standards or policy in place for urban resettlement, yet government is constructing more houses in these sites. This article intends to document the human rights violation faced by the resettled communities in Kannagi Nagar, Chennai, and calls for an urgent attention to bring in necessary changes in the R&R policy for urban resettlement.

Development policy focuses on creation of economic opportunities which increase the demand for transferring land from primary to secondary or tertiary activities. Market mechanism is sufficient argument of distributive justice for land acquisition for development activities, but it ignores income security. Landowners are heterogeneous in terms of knowledge, skills, risk preferences, attitudes and perception of future development benefits. The role of complementarities of land with farming skills are non-transferable that incorporate their concern for financial security and time preference. These concerns exhibited considerable diversity with corresponding preferences over alternative forms of non-cash compensation. Hence, alternative compensation packages ought to be offered to cater to this diversity.