Rural Development Minister Jairam Ramesh on Wednesday clarified that the ‘urgency clause’ under the land Acquisition Bill would be invoked only during natural calamity and national security and not for land acquired for private companies.
He also assured Rajya Sabha members that “collector’s autocracy” will not be allowed as the bureaucrat will calculate compensation under the set formula provided in the legislation and there is adequate provision for appeal against the decision.
Replying to the debate on the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in the land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill, 2013, Ramesh said that four official amendments have been brought in the Bill after consultation with BJP leaders so that irrigation projects are not adversely impacted by the legislation.
Rejecting the charge of AIADMK members that the Bill is an attack on the federal structure of the country, Ramesh said, “We have not interfered with the rights of States. land is a subject under the concurrent list and States rights have been fully protected.”
He said that the present legislation is aimed just to set up the minimum level of compensation to farmers in case their land is acquired and states can improve it further by giving better compensation, relief and rehabilitation to affected people.
The existing land acquisition law of 1894 which give immense power to administration has been misused by successive Government to harm farmers interest so the new legislation has been brought for balanced industrial growth along with rights of land owners, he said. It provides compensation to not only land owners but also those dependent on it for livelihood and also has separate provision for dalits and adivasis.
There would be no forcible acquisition as for private projects prior consent of 80 percent land owners would be required for acquisition while for PPP project it is 70 per cent, he said. Also, SEZs coming up now will be covered under the Bill. The legislation is against acquisition of multi-crop irrigated land, but since states like Punjab and Haryana opposed it they are free to frame their own rule to decide about it, he said. Ramesh also denied that it was a “pre-election law” to garner votes as it was under consideration for past two years.