#dnaEdit: Land-grab policy

In defence of the Modi government-sponsored Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, it is generally argued that land needs to be acquired at a faster pace in order to create infrastructural facilities and industries. But the situation on the ground seems to reflect a different reality. It could well be argued that the present raging debate around the land bill has less relevance considering that there are huge chunks of land already available with state governments. Acquired over the years, a chunk of this land is lying idle. States like Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka — each — have a lakh and more acres of land under their belts. And about one-third to one-half of them are unutilised. But governments — across the board — are continuing to acquire more land. The question then is: Why is the State turning into a land shark, greedily getting its hands on as much as it can? 

There is — undoubtedly — an urgent need to conduct a proper audit of utilisation of land acquired so far. One needs to ask: What were the stated objectives for acquiring the land? Have these objectives been fulfilled? 
The government’s argument that industrialisation and infrastructural projects cannot be executed without land surely sounds more unconvincing than ever. There is enough and more of land owned by governments. A Congress leader objecting to the amendments to the Land Acquisition Bill pointed out that one of the private sector players was running a steel plant on a plot of 10 acres in a Gulf country. But that same industrial house is also demanding 1000 acres to run another steel plant at home. It seems that governments at the Centre and in states along with the industrial houses are simply land hungry; they want to have more land than they actually need. The reason is plain: to sit over real estate and watch its value rise exponentially. But land epitomises notional wealth as long as it remains with government. 

Land acquired from farmers in return for inadequate compensation cannot be auctioned at an astronomical rate. That is an objective of private owners. Industrial houses owning land can hope to gain maximum benefit out of it. But governments cannot aim to do so, unless they promise to expend the money gained through auction of land on building basic amenities like houses, school, hospitals and stadia, for communities in areas where the land is located.

A potentially controversial aspect of government ownership of land is that it can allot land to private corporations for industrial and business purposes, thereby promoting industrialisation, employment and economic growth. This is indeed the ostensible rhetoric of the Modi government. There is, however, plenty of scope for misuse of government’s discretionary powers, which would encourage crony capitalism. It is for this reason that a counter-view is put forward. This view suggests that instead of government acquiring land for private corporations, industrialists should directly deal with landowners, and buy the land at market price. Government’s role should be confined to that of a fair umpire, overseeing the transaction of the deal and protecting the interests of landowners as well as industrialists. Governments should acquire land only for public purpose and nothing else. Such a policy would prevent land banks from acquiring swathes of land and keeping it under government control. At the end, there is definitely a need to revisit the rationale of the land acquisition law as such. The bill and the proposed amendments outline the processes of acquisition but not its rationale.