Bulldozing public with 'purpose'

The surging unrest among farmers who have been deprived of their rich agriculture land to pave way for various construction projects indicates lack of equity in fixing the compensation amount. Not only that even this amount doesn’t come to them in an easy way. They have to litigate for rightful compensation and also fight the illegality of snatching away land from them by the government which does this by creating a façade of genuine public purpose - needless to say the term `public purpose’ is as vague as `public servant’.    

However, the extreme concerns expressed by the men in power over acquisition of rich land and that it could boomerang into ghastly movements resulting in the bloodshed are not unknown. There has been no dearth of lip service for the farmers, whose holdings had already marginalised due to land consolidation and bifurcation of the joint family system.

Ironically, the government’s eagle eyes look only for rich soil. The millions of acres of barren land are hardly found suitable to serve public purpose. In other words, land which is in the periphery of a developed or a developing town is chosen even for plants that would be best suited at a distanced location.

Assuming that the government’s intention to acquire land doesn’t smack of malafide to serve the cause of some influential agent, it’s not permissible that landowners including farmers are told to pick up whatever is left on the table. The intended use of land and value of such land in the current market should be the key criteria for determining the compensation amount.

The concept of public purpose must be consistent to the Fundamental   Rights and the   Directive Principles that guarantee equality and right to work besides enjoining upon the government to act in accordance with the Preamble, which has been forgotten in both letter and deed.