#dnaEdit: States to the rescue

The Centre’s green flag to states to enact their own versions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act is a grudging admission of its failed strategy to push the amendments to the Act through the ordinance route. However, the government was robbed of the pleasure of claiming a breakthrough as the NITI Aayog meeting was boycotted by nine Congress Chief Ministers (CMs) and skipped by four other Opposition CMs. Nevertheless, the change of tack has been accompanied by a coordinated response from the BJP’s Chief Ministers, who appear to have been taken into confidence. These CMs have backed the amendments and regretted the failure to evolve a consensus, thereby prompting finance minister Arun Jaitley to bravely proclaim that the Centre would approve the laws enacted by “states which want to develop fast”. This is a far cry from late-2014, when the Narendra Modi government — keen to project its reformist credentials and emboldened by complaints from states that the Land Acquisition Act was unworkable — envisaged the ordinance route to ram through the amendments. But erratic rains and agricultural distress coupled with the Opposition uniting against the BJP, have clearly put the Centre on the back foot. Besides, withdrawal of the ordinance is also going to be viewed as a retrograde step by the industry.

In this scenario, the invocation of federalism to allow states to evolve their own models of land acquisition is perhaps the best course left for Prime Minister Modi. Take the case of a Chief Minister like Mamata Banerjee who skipped the NITI Aayog meeting. Like the BJP CMs, Banerjee also claims to be impatient about the lack of consensus, and is in favour of forming land banks. However, claiming to be completely opposed to forcible acquisition of land and dilution of consent, Banerjee has underlined that her government has completed various projects through “direct land purchase” after holding negotiations with landowners. Similarly, Punjab CM Parkash Singh Badal says his government has never faced any problems in land acquisition by involving the community in deciding the compensation, which led to “implied consent”. On the other hand, Maharashtra CM Devendra Fadnavis claims that the land acquisition process has come to a complete standstill in his state after the UPA’s law was enacted. Meanwhile, Rajasthan has already initiated amendments to the UPA’s land acquisition act. But the Bill — silent on social impact assessment — dilutes consent for public-private partnerships, and does away with the consent clause in core infrastructure projects.

Interestingly, these Chief Ministers have laid much emphasis on giving fair compensation to landowners and quickly acquiring or “purchasing” the land, but are silent on the social impact assessment and the rehabilitation and resettlement provisions of the central legislation. It is conceivable that left to the states, the social impact assessment and the rehabilitation and resettlement provisions of the central Act will be given a quiet burial owing to the administrative and revenue burden they pose for the states. But to what measure can the states depart from the spirit of the Centre’s land acquisition act to create their own legislations? This could trigger a spate of litigation by the stakeholders affected by the acquisition measures. Since land acquisition is a concurrent subject, state legislations are expected to broadly conform to the central legislation. This leaves the NDA government with no option but to keep its ordinance alive by repeatedly promulgating it. Having excluded infrastructure projects, industrial corridors, affordable housing and defence from consent clauses, social impact assessment and food security considerations, the NDA ordinance creates sufficient breathing space for states to craft their own laws. Nevertheless, it could take several months before the mess surrounding land acquisition is completely sorted out.

But in the larger context, this muddle reinforces federalism. The all-powerful Centre has been forced to entrust its most prestigious legislative proposal to the states.