When a law is enacted after considerable debate and consultation, it
will be wise to study the experience of its implementation for some time
before it is amended, in order to address perceived difficulties. Any
such amendment within the first year of its entry into force, especially
one pushed
through as an ordinance, will be inevitably perceived as
hasty, even if on the positive side it is meant to eliminate delays in
land acquisition. In this backdrop, the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
(Amendment) Ordinance, 2014, is bound to face criticism that the changes
constitute a significant dilution of a progressive law. The Congress and the Left parties are likely to oppose
the changes when the law comes to Parliament in the form of a bill to
replace the ordinance. In substance, the ordinance makes a significant
change by omitting in respect of a wide range of projects the
requirements of a social impact assessment study, the informed consent
of a large section of the families affected by the acquisition of land.
These projects include those that are vital to national security and
defence, rural infrastructure, affordable housing and housing for the
poor, besides industrial corridors and infrastructure and social
infrastructure projects. The vital element of making acquisition a
consultative and participative process may thus be subject to
bureaucratic discretion.
The principle of ‘eminent domain’, which justifies the compulsory
acquisition of land by the state for a public purpose, normally ought to
be accompanied by a duty to give fair compensation. However, the
colonial Land Acquisition Act of 1894 had in effect reduced compensation
to a mere token in relation to the market value, and for decades it was
used to deprive many, mostly farmers, of their land for a pittance.
Last year’s law radically altered this relationship between citizen and
state and created a fair compensation right, as well as a new structure
for rehabilitation and resettlement. It also cast a duty on the
government to create specified amenities in every resettlement area.
Thankfully, the ordinance does not dilute these provisions, but
additionally extends them to a list of Acts that were previously
exempted. However, this is not its own contribution, as the original Act
itself said such a provision shall be enacted within a year. Prime
Minister Narendra Modi has projected the amendments as those that
strengthen protection for the affected families and also removes
difficulties in implementation. Perhaps the regime’s intentions could
have been better understood had the changes been introduced as a bill in
Parliament and referred to a committee for appraisal
