For long, land has been the central point of debates on striking a delicate balance between stimulating growth and extending the benefits of that development to key stakeholders — the ones who give up their land.
While industry needs land for creating infrastructure, land holders complain that they are being left out. Or worse, cheated.
Industry cut-up
Industry, too, is crying wolf. Their view is that the new Bill is ‘unfair.’
With the much higher level of compensation to be paid, not to forget the mandatory resettlement and rehabilitation requirements, the new Bill has spooked India Inc.
A section of industry feels that the archaic Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was unfairly in favour of industry. The compensation requirement in the old law was as low as a 30 per cent solatium, over the value of the land.
However, turning that over, the new Bill, if passed in Parliament, would require the industry to pay compensation of two to four times the land value, along with capital for re-settlement and rehabilitation. A hefty price, given what corporate houses are used to.
The price of acquisition is not what seems to concern businesses. It is the process which they fear will be long and tedious to give them second thoughts before considering expansion.
This is the biggest risk. The question they ask is what if even after paying more, the deal doesn’t come through?
A senior official from the mining industry says, “At the end of the day, increasing the land acquisition compensation is not an issue at all. The important point is will that give the assurance that land acquisition will automatically take place?”
Land-holders
The concerns of tribals, who are concentrated in the most mineral-rich areas, rural poor, farmers and others, have been highlighted time and again, with activists alleging that their land is “grabbed in the name of development” and they are left in the woods, while the industry mints money.
The concerns over the loss of land and livelihood continue despite the formulation of a new Bill, called The Right to Fair Compensation, Re-settlement, Rehabilitation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Bill.
Land holders’ point of contention is the dilution in the proposed consent clause, from 80 per cent earlier to 66 per cent.
And with the fact that the people who are livelihood dependents on the land, but don’t own it, have no voice.