To,
Hon. Narendra Modi ji,
Prime Minister of India
South Block, Raisina
Hill,
New Delhi - 110011
Headline:
The ordinance of the Land Acquisition Act of 2013 is totally anti-farmer
Following a prolonged struggle of farmers, the
erstwhile government amended the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 which was
promulgated by the British in 2013 and brought in the Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Act of 2013 contained some
provisions protecting interests of farmers. However, the new government came
out with an ordinance dated December 31, 2014 which amended the provisions of
the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 that protected
interests of farmers. Since these amendments were unjust to farmers, many Non-Government
Organisations, farmer’s organisations and other associations and organisations
from all over the country hit the streets to agitate against them and protests
began across the nation. That forced the government promise the people that if
the law is against the interests of the farmers, it will be amended. Later on
April 3, 2015, the government issued a new ordinance. That ordinance did not
make provisions to protect interests of the farmers. The protests which have
begun across the nations still continue as the new ordinance too is against the
interest of farmers. With the government reiterating time and again that the
ordinance is in the interest of the farmers, people are confused as to whether
the law protects interests of farmers or harms them. An attempt is sought to be
made here to clear the picture for benefit of the people at large.
In
the prevailing circumstances, the law is against the interests of farmers
because of following reasons:
1.
Amendments
made by ordinance: The Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 promulgated on September
27, 2013 uses the term Private Company whereas the ordinance brought out on
April 3, 2015 provides for use of the term Private entity. Why such an
amendment was made?
Government’s
intentions: The reason behind
the amendment made by the government is that the term Private Company falls
under the preview of the Companies Act, 1956. As a result, the government
cannot allot any land to any company as per its wishes. When the government realized
this and since it wanted to allot lands to Private Entities at large scale, it
incorporated the term Private Entity. This intention is clear from the
amendment. These Private Entities include Single Owner Firm, Partnership Firm,
Companies, and Corporations, Voluntary Organizations or any other organizations
formed under the prevailing law. The Government could not have allotted lands
to all these entities due to the use of the term Private Company in Act of
2013. Therefore, to facilitate a few people close to those to the
powers-that-be, the term Private Company in the Act of 2013 was replaced with
the term Private Entity. As per the ordinance of April 2, 2015, the government
has powers to acquire farmers’ lands and allot them to Private Entities for
projects such as schools, colleges and hotels. As a result, thousands of acres
of land belonging to poor farmers can be acquired, leaving these farmers
landless. Thus the law is likely to come handy for the influential people and
their organizations. Such a decision is against interests of farmers. Does the
government want this amendment to facilitate organization of people close to it
and workers of ruling party? What is the reason for such an amendment?
2.
Following
provisions were added to the Section 2, subsection 2 of the Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 through the amendment. “The land
acquisition made for projects and objectives mentioned in Section 10 A will be
excluded as per the first condition under this Subsection.”
This provision made after
Section 2, subsection 1 of the Act excluded the lands acquisitioned for
projects mentioned under Section 10 A were excluded from the condition of
acquiring prior approval of 80 per cent of land owners.
Due to these amendments, the
government is now able to acquire lands of farmers without their approval and
allot them to private entities as per its wishes. This law encroaches upon
rights of the farmer. Such a law is harmful to democratic process and unjust to
farmers.
Taking away the lands from
farmers who have owned them for years forcefully without their consent and
allotting them to industrialists or private entities clearly shows that this
government is heading towards dictatorship from democracy.
Lakhs of people laid down their
lives in 90 years from 1857 to 1947 to oust the unjust British and attain
freedom for the country, to bring in democracy here. This law shatters the
dreams of these martyrs. The amendment made in the law by the government raises
the question as to whether the supreme sacrifice of these martyrs was a waste.
Our country became a Republic
on January 26, 1950. Citizens became owners of the country. Democracy is the
government of the people, for the people by the people. Therefore the
government acquiring the lands of farmers without obtaining their consent is
anti-democratic. The farmer is the original owner of the land. If the
government starts taking away lands without the owners’ consents, what would be
the difference between such a government and the British rule? That’s why the
Act of 2013 provided that land cannot be acquired without obtaining prior
consent of farmers. We believe if the government amends this provision to
acquire lands without obtaining prior consent, it would be unjust to the
farmers. The insertion of provision after section 2, subsection 2 of the Act
excludes lands acquisitioned for following purposes mentioned under section 10
A from the condition of obtaining prior consent of 80 per cent land owners.
A.
Projects of
importance for the protection of India and any part of India as well as
national security including projects for preparedness of defense forces and
manufacturing of requirements of defense.
B.
Base infrastructure
projects in rural areas including power supply.
C.
Projects to provide
housing for poor and affordable housing.
D.
Industrial Zones of
governments and their industrial organizations (acquisition of up to 1 km land
along planned railway lines and roads).
E.
All projects for
basic amenities and social facilities including Public-Private Partnership
where land is owned by government.
Thus,
the government can acquire lands without consent of farmers and allot them to
private entities and industrialists. This law encroaches upon rights of
farmers. This law is anti-democratic. Taking away farmers’ lands without their
consents and allotting them to industrialist’s shows transformation of
government from democratic one to dictatorial. Therefore it must be explained
how this law serves interest of farmers.
I.
Projects of
importance for the protection of India and any part of India as well as national
security including projects for preparedness of defense forces and
manufacturing of requirements of defense.
If
private entities are involved in defence manufacturing, they may misuse the
defence material and equipment. That may even endanger internal security.
Therefore the intention of ensuring security of India or any part of India
cannot be achieved. Under such circumstances, acquiring farmers’ lands without
their consents and allotting them to profit making companies does injustice to
them instead of protecting their rights.
Moreover if private entities are included in
defence manufacture, these private entities may be lured by enemy states and
join hands with them. Therefore, reconsideration of general private entities in
the law for defence manufacture is needed.
II.
Base
infrastructure projects in rural areas including power supply
The
definition of base infrastructure projects in this law is vast in this law.
Here the term used is only base infrastructure projects. It does not clarify
definition of basic infrastructure. The law does not spell out which industries
are covered under it. Therefore many industrialists, private entities may start
any project of their desire in the name of basic infrastructure projects and
farmers land will be acquired for them at large scale. This would be unjust to
farmers.
III.
Projects to
provide housing for poor and affordable housing
The
law states affordable housing but its definition is not clear. What is the guarantee
that builders, land mafia will not misuse the provision for such projects? Many
such incidents are already happening in many cities. It shows the design of the
government of taking away farmers lands without consent and giving them to
builders. The government must study and work out plan to ensure that land mafia
does not benefit out of such policies.
IV.
Industrial
Zones of governments and their industrial organizations (acquisition of up to 1
km land along planned railway lines and roads)
The
amendments in the law are harmful to environment and democracy. Our country has
a total length of 62,000 km railway lines, total length of 92,000 km national
highways and total length of 1,32,000 km state highways. Therefore estimating
how much land can be acquired is difficult.
Post-independence,
tree plantation has been done on either sides. Cores of rupees have been spent
for growing trees along the national highways. All these trees are endangered
due to this amendment. If these trees are hacked, it would be a hazard for
environment. On one hand, we are increasing industrial areas where lakhs of
tonnes of fuel like petrol, diesel, kerosene and coal is being burnt. The
emission of carbon di oxide is a health hazard. The environment is degrading
and temperatures are going up causing ecological imbalance. Besides, acquisition
of lakhs of acres of land without obtaining farmers’ consent is
anti-democratic. Clearly, this government does not protest interests of
farmers. It favours only industrialists and organisations close to the people
in rule.
V.
All projects
for basic amenities and social facilities including Public-Private Partnership
where land is owned by government.
Before
issuing ordinance, the government concerned must at least consider the required
space to decide scope of land acquisition. As per the law, the government
concerned must survey barren land, waste land etc. and maintain a record.
The
amendments in the law are ambiguous. They do not spell out which projects are
Public-Private Partnership projects. There is no clarity about even which
projects are basic amenities projects and which social facilities projects are.
Acquiring lands of farmers for such projects which are excluded from social
impact assessment study is totally anti-farmer. Any law must be clear on this.
If there is no clarity in law, it will be interpreted in different ways and
farmers will get affected. Therefore the government must clarify on each of
these aspects. The government is now empowered to provide lands for such
projects to private entities and industrialists without consent of farmers. Therefore
this law encroaches upon rights of the farmers. It is harmful to democracy. It
is not clear how this law is beneficial to farmers. If the government claims
this law is beneficial to farmers, it must elaborate and explain. The
government also claims carrying out surveys of barren lands and waste lands is
misleading people. Why all this is being done?
Therefore
the citizens and we had demanded that all lands in the country be surveyed and
classified in grades like 1/2/3/4/5/6. There must be law prohibiting allotment
of lands in class 1/2/3/4 for industries and lands in class 5/6 can only be
allotted to industrial sector. That will increase agricultural produce as well
as industrial manufacture, thereby helping development of the nation. The
government’s attempt to acquire lands producing more than two crops is
anti-farmer. That would decrease agriculture produce and the possibility of we
facing food shortage cannot be ruled out.
3.
In section 3,
subsection j, sub subsection I:
A.
The terms
“Companies Act, 1956” will be replaced by “Companies Act, 2013”
B.
Following section
would be added after subsection Y:
“YY: Private entities means any
institute other than government institute of industry which includes single
owner firms, partnership firms, company, corporation, nonprofit organization or
any other organization formed under any existing law.
This
shows by giving effect to Companies Act, 2013, the government is trying to
include more and more organisations in the acquisition process. In Public
Private Partnership, the government can allot projects without consent. This
makes it clear that this decision has been taken to protect interests of
industries and private organisations.
4.
Adding new
chapter III-A
Following
chapter will be added to the law after chapter III
Chapter
III-A
Provisions
in Chapter II and Chapter II will not be applicable to certain projects.
(Powers
of government concerned to exclude certain projects)
10A
– Considering the public interest, the government concerned can exclude any
projects from the scope of applicability of provisions made under Chapter II
and III of this Act.
5.
Amendments in
Part 87
Following
amendments will be done to Part 87:
87.
In case of commission of such offence under this Act, if the offence is
committed by the person in the service of the central government or state
government, or by person who was in service of central government or state
government, the court will take cognisance of such offence only if the
government gives prior sanction as per provisions made under section 19 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure.
This
amended part 87 and provision in it is totally anti-farmers.
If
an aggrieved farmer wants to file case against someone who is or has been in
the service of the central government or state government, the court will not
be able to take its cognisance without prior sanction of the government concerned.
How is it possible to obtain sanction of the person against whom the complaint
is to be filed? In land acquisition process, the District Collector is the main
officer taking decision. How the complainant concerned can file a complaint
against him? This decision is anti-democracy.
6.
Amendments in
part 101:
In section 101, the term “For period of five years” shall be
replaced by the term “longest period between period fixed for installation of
the project or a maximum of five years.”
This change in the duration is anti-farmer.
Similarly, it ensures that the acquired lands of farmers remain with the
government, industries for maximum period. The period must be five years and no
more. If project does not start during the period, the acquired land must be
returned to the land owner or his successors.
7.
Amendments in section 113
In section 113, sub section 1:
A) The term “Provisions in this part” shall be replaced by the term
“Provisions of this Act.”
B) In the conditions, the term “For period of two years” be replaced by the
term “for period of five years”.
By replacing the term “Provisions in this
part” shall be replaced by the term “Provisions of this Act”, the government
has increased its powers under the Act. In case of disputes pertaining to land
acquisition, the farmer will have to wait for five years. The period of two
years for the reason is more appropriate. Therefore this amendment too is
anti-farmer.
Though the government claims that the law
is in the interest of farmers, the examples cited above show how the Act does
injustice to farmers. In case the ordinance is converted into a law,
generations of farmers will suffer losses. Similarly, it will impact the food
grain production in the country. It will also have effects on environment as a
result of which the farmers will be forced to face hazards like droughts and
unseasonal rains. Therefore the agitation against the amendments in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is not against any party or
individual. It is for the issues concerning the farmers, society, state and
nation. Therefore we request the government to study the law in depth and
promulgate a law that will protect interests of farmers.
One side, the government may be claiming that
the Ordinance is pro-farmer, however, the above examples show that the Land
Acquisition Act is completely anti-farmer. If the Ordinance realizes into an
Act, the livelihood of generation of farmers would be destroyed. It will also
have an adverse effect on the agricultural production. If this Act is
implemented then, along with the farmers, the people at large would also be
disappointed with the government. This Act would also have an adverse effect on
environment as it will affect the ecological balance and result in drought in
some areas and unseasonal rains in other areas thus affecting the farmer’s
produce. Hence, the campaign against the Land Acquisition Act is not against a
particular political party or an individual but it is in the interest and
benefit of every individual, state and the nation and we have made an attempt
to bring in transparency in order to bring out injustice to the farmer in the
amendments to the Land Acquisition Act. In case, there is any shortcoming in
our view, we request you to drop us a letter and let us know your objections to
our stand. In case, there is no shortcoming, we request the government to
reconsider the amendments and make them pro-farmer.
Every now & then the government
is emphasizing that the Land acquisition Ordinance is in the interests of the
farmers, but the above provisions shows that it is clearly anti-farmer,
Therefore we have studied the ordinance seriously & raised above said
points, In such situation it is necessary to clarify in front of the citizens,
the governments stand of stating that the ordinance is in the interests of the
farmers or the points raised by us are true. We expect the governments’ opinion
in this regard by 25 April.
Thank
you.
Yours,
K. B. Alias Anna Hazare
No comments:
Post a Comment