Ensure fair compensation for land acquisition

The issue of land acquisition has always been plagued by controversies. Major hurdles to land acquisition are due to the country’s flawed colonial Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Lack of fair and proper compensation remains the single biggest reason for popular opposition to land acquisition.

Any Act on land acquisition needs to be simple and it needs to begin with the people who are losing their lands. There should also be a grievance redressal mechanism built into the acquiring process.

Let us not forget that approximately 70% of our population is dependent on agriculture for a living. Most of them are small and marginal farmers. Added to this, a large number of landless labourers and share croppers eke out their livelihood from the farm lands. But the irony is that only about 25% of our total GDP comes from agriculture.

Therefore, if the economy of the country has to grow steadily, the bulk of that growth has to come from other areas, such as manufacturing, services, etc. In recent years, the need for land acquisition has increased, particularly after the special economic zones (SEZs) and mining and large development projects started coming up in a big way. A number of land acquisition attempts have led to protests by those affected. Very often, these protests have turned violent.

Agriculture itself depends for its growth on infrastructure, as also on industry, to quite an extent and therefore the need of land for nonagricultural use.

If land/property is acquired from someone for reasons of industry or state, the owner should be paid the prevailing market rate. It is as simple as that. That is my personal opinion, of course. After all, the constitutional rights of every citizen include his/ her right to own land. Whichever tract of land is acquired, and whatever the legal reason, there must be no distinction in the fact that the land must be bought/acquired at the prevalent relevant market rent. It could be for a school, hospital, dam, or railways, highways, metros.

The modalities of how this market price is to be arrived at must be worked out. Whatever reasonable percentage of the project cost is involved, the government should be able to afford it. After all, the government and the nation are going to benefit for a long, long time.

On completion, some projects such as railways, highways, water from dam, metro will also generate an earning capacity. But even more important is that the infrastructural development of the country would lead to all-time economic growth in addition to generation of employment.

If adequate market price is paid to the owners of the land acquired, there will be no question of rehabilitation, etc. The person can then, with the money, have the resources to take his own decisions as to what his next step should be. Moreover, if a tract of land is required to be acquired, and it is owned by many people, the will of the majority must be taken. The minority landowners who do not agree with it should not be allowed to block development and render the land worthless.

A number of large infrastructure projects are at a standstill today because of delays in getting land. Many SEZs have become the arenas of fierce disputes. According to a recent study, delays in land acquisition are threatening to endanger investments worth $100 billion in the near term. The negative impact this will have on economic growth, generation of new employment and on tax collection can well be imagined.

This issue of land acquisition should not be politicised. I think this problem should be sorted out in a way that makes humanitarian, constitutional and economic sense. And we should then concentrate on taking the onward paths towards progress and development

The writer is chairman, Dalmia Group. Views are personal.