Offering broad support to the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill in the Lok Sabha on Thursday, most political parties expressed concern over aspects, such as acquisition of arable and multi-crop land, misuse of the ‘urgency’ clause, inadequate compensation and taking away of the right of farmers to appeal.
Participating in a debate on the Bill, the parties also expressed concern over Special Economic Zones (SEZ) being kept out, at which Rural Development Minister Jairam Ramesh said the Government was bringing an amendment to ensure that SEZs were covered.
Initiating the debate, senior BJP leader Rajnath Singh said the Bill had deviated from its prime objective by not taking the concerns of the rural poor and farmers seriously. He said though his party was not against industrialisation, the Bill was industry- and urban-centric.
Among other suggestions, Singh sought greater clarification on the definition of “public purpose” and said the ‘urgency’ clause for acquisition should be done away with. The clause has been widely criticise for not defining what constitutes ‘urgency’ leaving it to the discretion of the acquiring authority. Singh also said that acquisition of multi-crop land should only be allowed in exceptional cases.
In her speech, Congress MP Meenakshi Natarajan, said the Bill was a historic initiative as its title reflected the philosophy of a rights-based approach towards relief and rehabilitation of not just farmers but all those dependent on land for their livelihood.
Samajwadi Party chief Mulayam Singh Yadav said there was no need for such a law. “Why are you targeting productive land,” he said, adding that the Government should set up industries and factories on vast tracts of barren and wasteland. He said Bill would “ruin” farmers.
Bahujan Samaj Party’s S.S Nagar mocked the Congress’s seriousness on the Bill by pointing out at the thin attendance on the Treasury benches. He wanted several changes such as on compensation, notification of the acquired land area, and strict monitoring of change in land-use.
The TMC, Janata Dal (United), CPI(M), AIADMK, DMK, TDP, NCP and other parties also participated in the debate, with most of them suggesting restrictions on acquisition of multi-crop land.
TMC did not want the Government to play mediator with for the private sector. The CPI(M) wanted the ‘urgency’ clause to go, as “it has no R&R and 80 per cent land will end up being acquired by using this provision”.
The debate, however, was marred by a verbal duel between Trinamool Congress and CPI(M) members, short of coming to blows. When the TMC members continued to interrupt CPI(M) leader Basudeb Acharia, the chair of the session, Francisco Sardinha, had to remind TMC member Kalyan Banerjee that “This is not West Bengal Assembly.”