21 October 2011 Ms.

Sumitra Mahajan Chair Person Parliamentary Standing Committee for Rural Development Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (LARR) Bill 2011 New Delhi Re: Concerns, Positions and Suggestions emerging from Deliberation on Land Issues - Focus on LARR Bill 2011, held on 29 September 2011 in Vishwa Yuvak Kendra, New Delhi Dear Ms. Mahajan and Members of the Standing Committee, At the outset we would like to state that we welcome the idea of repealing the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 and look forward to the intent of crafting a progressive, inclusive and equality driven legislation in its place. There are encouraging aspects in the LARR Bill2011 that need to be commended, and these have been flagged later in the document. However there are grave concerns that MUST be considered and addressed by those involved in building the legislation; we trust that the observations and concerns collated in this document will be engaged with productively by the Standing Committee. India is steadily growing to be a schizophrenic democracy; riven with the split realities of a shining emerging superpower on one face, and an increasingly impoverished, exploited, dispossessed on the other. In several ways, unfortunately, the articulation of the LARR Bill2011 captures this schizophrenia. The foreword itself reinforces the inequities of transaction of those benefited and those affected; when it seeks to ...ensure a humane, participatory, informed, consultative and transparent process for land acquisition for industrialisation, development of essential infrastructural facilities and urbanization with the least disturbance to the owners of the land and other affected families and provide just and fair compensation to the affected families...(Draft LARR Bill, September 2011) Any legislation coming from the Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD), should protect, strengthen and advance rural processes and rural infrastructure, rather than promote the invasion of it. Inherent in the very foreword, is the forward march of industrialisation, development of essential infrastructural facilities and urbanization and the retreat of the affected families. Instead of giving priority to urban infrastructure services, it should advance rural infrastructure services that allow people to live secure lives enriched with opportunity, equity and dignity. If the LARR Bill, 2011 has been drafted with the vision and premise that urbanization and industrialisation is inevitable, and therefore the affected people should be well compensated; we must ask why this agenda is seen as a fait accompli, and who its stakeholders are.

As long as rural India is deprived of opportunity and facilities, people will be forced to move to cities to seek survival; the migrant poor, in this situation, sign up for further poverty, oppression, squalor and alienation. If 31% of Indias population is urban, living with a land allocation of 3-4% (Isher Judge Ahluwalia, Indian Express, 2011); rather than facilitate fast-tracked urbanization to spur Shining Indias perceived economic growth momentum, would it not be fit for the MoRD to capacitate relevant in situ growth in rural India empowering and equipping Indias 70% odd rural population to remain in their own enabled domain, while retaining critical social, community, agricultural and environmental balances? Firstly, what is the model of growth and development we are being urged to take; a West driven one that has a proven track record of credit crises, sweeping scams, crashing economies, fragmented communities, social isolation and doubtful happiness indices; a path that has triggered the Occupy Wall Street movement and found resonance across the world? Secondly, if any legislation to fast track Indias targeted 8-9% urban-centric growth trajectory is to be brought to pass, should it emerge, in any form at all, from the MoRD, which in principle, is mandated to build on and reinforce the strengths of rural India and its people, to the maximum? While Development signifies a right to advance and progress for some, it also equally carries risks to human life, livelihood, security and dignity, for others. To deserve a positive connotation that reflects holistic, integrated and necessary advancement for society, at large, the focus must be on what constitutes development socially, economically and politically - and crucially, against what trade-offs. Instances of forced displacements and land-grab - whether Nandigram or Noida, Singur or Srikakulam - have continued in India, for over a century, under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. With its overarching code of eminent domain it has grown to been regarded as a draconian tool of oppression in pro-people thought, even when it is implemented for greater public good. Recent trends of economic growth, with neo-liberal leanings, clearly indicate the concentration of wealth and resources in the hands of few, at the cost of the majority. This has led to a spate of struggles across the country - a groundswell of anger, resistance and in many instances, bloodshed leaving people alienated, dispossessed and gravely resentful. In these inherent inequities - of transaction and transfer of resources, and the entrenched patterns of those empowered to take, and those forced to give - lies an uncertain future riven with injustice, unrest and inevitable violence. The Lokpal debate recently captured centre-stage and leveraged itself into a peoples movement driven by the media and the middle-class. The LARR Bill is not likely to get even a fraction of the public exposure or dialogue that it requires; even though it has the potential to either, dangerously, further divide the country along the equity fault lines - or actually provide a secure legislative link to deescalate and heal the schizophrenia. Framing the Bill afresh offers the potential to found a historic Act that can safeguard millions of already vulnerable Indians from being displaced and dispossessed - while enabling relevant and equitable development for the entire country. Rewriting this archaic legislation carries a heroic responsibility to all the people of this nation.

For Indias democracy to claim the just way forward it must consider the statement below: Most large forced dislocations of people do not occur in conditions of armed conflict or genocide but in routine, everyday evictions to make way for development projects. This development cleansing may well constitute ethnic cleansing in disguise, as the people dislocated so often turn out to be from minority ethnic and racial communities. - Balakrishnan Rajagopal, August 9, 2002, The Violence of Development, Washington Post *Please see enclosed document (total pages 14) listing the observations, concerns and suggestions that emerged during the collective deliberation on 29 September 2011, in relation to the LARR Bill as introduced in Lok Sabha on 7 September 2011. There may be some views that have not been reflected here and we would like to state that this response is an organic process that can be strengthened more with exchanges of thoughts and views. We would be happy to meet and engage in further open dialogue regarding the next steps on this legislation. Please let us know if you need any further information. Thanks and best wishes, Deliberation Participants: A.K.Pany- Adivasi Kranti Sangathan, Odisha; Ambrish Mehta-ARCH Vahini, Gujarat; Amulya Kumar Nayak- Adivasi Chetna Sangathan, Odisha; Anil Chaudhary- PEACE, Delhi; Anil Vaaghere- Programme for Social Action,Delhi; Anjali Bharadwaj- Satark Nagrik SangathanDelhi; Arvind Anjum- Visthapit Mukti Vahini, Jharkhand; Ashok Kumar- Satark Nagrik Sangathan- Delhi; Asif Iqbal- Delhi; B. Sunanda- MASS, Andhra Pradesh; B.K SinhaSecretary, Ministry of Rural Development, Delhi; Barun Mitra- Liberty Institute, Delhi; Basanti- MATI-Munsiari, Uttrakhand; C.A Priyadarshi- Janmukti. Sangharsh. Vahini, Bihar; Dashrath Jadhav- Shramjeevi Sangathan, Maharashtra; Devendra- Hum Kisan Sangathan, Rajasthan; Jaypal Rana- Mussoorie; K. Sahadeviah- Navajeevan Andhra Pradesh; Kailash Bharti- Mazdoor Kisan Samiti Bihar; Kamla- MATI-Munsiari, Uttrakhand; Kanika SatyanandSRUTI, Delhi; Khemraj - Khetihar Khan Mazdoor Sangathan Rajasthan; Lotika BaruahSRUTI, Delhi; M.S. Selvaraj- VTMS, Tamil Nadu; Mamta Kujur- Adivasi Mahila Mahasangh, Chattisgarh; Manisha Lath- SRUTI, Delhi; Pasan Sabar- Lok Chetna Sangathan, Odisha; Pradeep Kumar Dash- Lok Chetna Sangathan, Odisha; Prafulla Kumar Nayak- Adim Adhibasi Mukti Manch; Rajkumar Sharma- Bundelkhand Kisan Mazdoor Shakti Sangathan, Madhya Pradesh; Rakesh Bharadwaj- PEACE, Delhi; Rashmi Ranjan Barik- Mati Ma Mahila Morcha, Odisha; Ratanlal- Khetihar Khan Mazdoor Sangathan Rajasthan; Ravi Hemadri, The Other Media; Rekha Rautela- MATI-Munsiari, Uttrakhand; Sameer- International Labour Organization, Delhi; Santan Dash- Nivedita Foundation Chattisgarh; Santosh Kumar Pradhan- Mati Ma Mahila Morcha, Odisha; Satyam Srivastava- SRUTI, Delhi; Shagufta- Hum Kisan Sangathan, Rajasthan; Sharmistha - Oxfam, Delhi; Shibani Chaudhury- SRUTI, Delhi; Shweta- SRUTI, Delhi; Sister Celia- Karnataka Domestic Workers Union; Sukruta AlluriSRUTI, Delhi; Ulka Mahajan- Sarvahara Jan Andolan, Maharashtra; Uma Tanuku- SRUTI, Delhi; Usha Ramanathan- Law Researcher, Delhi; Veena- MATI-Munsiari, Uttrakhand; Veerendra Kumar- Bundelkhand Kisan Mazdoor Shakti Sangathan, Madhya Pradesh; Vijayan. M. J- Delhi Forum, Delhi; Vilas Bhongade- Kastakari Jan Andolan, Maharashtra For further information please contact: Shibani: 9560695305, Shweta: 9911528696, Satyam: 9810423296, Manisha: 9899568195

c/o SRUTI, Q1 Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi- 110016 Tel: 011- 26964946, 26569023 Email: core@sruti.org.in

Observations, Concerns and Suggestions

Emerging from Deliberation on Land Issues - Focus on LARR Bill 2011, held on 29 September 2011, New Delhi The drafting of the LARR Bill 2011 signifies an important shift in the countrys legislation. However it is a challenge to translate intent into action; especially when the future of those who will be ultimately compromised is decided upon largely by distant powers that may be differently aligned and are, mostly, rooted in different realities. It would be important to collaboratively construct a common understanding of the multiple layers and complexities with which the legislation would finally impact the people on the ground. Key observations/ concerns/ suggestions on the LARR Bill 2011, raised during the collective discussion of various grass root social action groups, civil society individuals and organizations, are as follows:

1. Land must be perceived as a vital resource and not a commodity.

Land is perceived as a commodity in this bill. Land is generational life support, not seen as a transferable commodity by most land dependent communities.

Land is only alive when it is productive, once killed it cannot be revived again. Land as the most important natural and livelihood resource should be primarily used to secure sustenance and food production. Under British rule, industries were started but no land was acquired by the Government for it; it was bought and sold. Most acquisitions in remote areas has happened post the 1960s for PSUs, dams, mining. LA 1894 was to stop generic Land Acquisition; LARR 2011 has given the power to acquire land. In several ways it retains and expands the idea of coercive acquisition. In some cases the process of acquisition is in terms of square kilometers e.g. PCPIRs, DMIC & proposed NMIZs. In rural India it is transacted and measured in sq kms and in urban India per square foot vast variance in measure of value. Planned development has been brought under Infrastructure under the LARR-2011. This is intrinsically geared to create monopoly over land. Land holding and land bank creation will be legalized in this process. The draft tends to assume that there are no other issues related with selling land, the only real concern being compensation. The parameters for compensation while being much better than in the past are still unequal when compared to the end value the land will command. Agrarian people barely have a voice; half urban- half rural inhabitants start the negotiations dividing rural community and family stands. Common property has been excluded. The Bill does not consider that for many, land is not necessarily transactable even at 4-6 times the starting rate. In most areas already facing acquisition processes almost every family is torn apart by compensation fights. In the past those willing to give up land, lured by immediate returns, have suffered. Agrarian crisis in some belts may spur interest in land sale; however this phenomenon is definitely not common to all regions and reaffirms that the MoRD should focus on equipping and building up rural, agrarian processes to

create a viably and equitably enabled rural domain for around 70% of Indias population.

2.

Why is the MoRD putting forward a framework to enable industrialization and urbanization?

Instead of strengthening rural processes and infrastructure, the Bill focuses on enabling urbanization and industrialization processes. Seems to be driven more by the idea of 8-9% growth via industry & services as against 3-4% growth in agriculture Average ratio of 1 land loser is loss of 5 peoples livelihood. How can this ratio of displacement be pro rural poor? Just and fair rehabilitation has been converted to just and fair compensation. Multiple versions of LARR 2011 in a short period has led to confusion. The legislation procedure itself is also important to ensure responsible law making. What model of development are we emulating, and for whose benefit? Particularly relevant in the light of the crashing economies of the West and the growing worldwide support for the Occupy Wall Street resistance movement. Rural context is being altered in the neo-liberal era; the rate of urbanization is high; tens of thousands of urban villages created. Migration levels are high in villages and population of urban poor going up. MoRD should focus on equipping rural India to be more enabled, empowered and productive rather than preparing to have it taken over by urbanization.

3.

Definition of ambiguous.

Public

Purpose

far

too

subjective

and

Definition of Public Purpose is too wide and must be narrowed down. Urgency Clause should be clearly defined and adhered to It must resist the idea of eminent domain.

Public purpose needs to be redefined in accordance with the fact that issues like agriculture, food security & sovereignty, environmental concerns and right to land & livelihood should not be compromised for the sake of massive industrialization or urbanization. Compulsory land acquisition should be done only under the urgency clause. PSUs and factories should not come under Public Purpose. Private executors of public purpose projects are not acceptable. Land for public purpose projects like roads, which should be created with taxpayers money, is acquired, built up and subsequently converted to toll roads with returns going to private parties. How does this remain public purpose? The language used to describe minimum displacement has been changed to reducing the disturbances caused to the owners of Land.

The scope of Public Purpose as given in the sub-sections (i) to (vi) under Section3 (za) is very wide. Instead of limiting the instances of coercive land acquisition, the scope of public purpose has expanded exponentially by including varied sectors in its definition. Agricultural land serves public interest by ensuring food sovereignty; therefore, the statement of making the process of land acquisition easier for public purpose through the Act (as stated in the draft) should be addressed.

4. Acquisition of land in Schedule V or VI areas should not be included in the LARR Act.

Coercive power to acquire land must not be used in Schedule V or VI areas. These should be treated separately with the participatory involvement of tribals and other forest dwellers. Areas under FRA also must be excluded from coming under the LARR Act as it makes an un-transferable land resource transferable. Tribal communities see themselves as keepers of natural resources handed down generations. They do not see it as theirs to give.

If tribals can collect NTFP and legally trade it as their resource, why are productive ownership and rights over mineral resources not given to them; instead why is it handed over to industrialists from outside, while tribals as original inhabitants and stakeholders are displaced? Social and community based tribal societies are being urged to opt for a capitalist society. Chhattisgarh created as a secure domain for tribal communities to provide political right to Adivasis; instead the population of Adivasis is decreasing as they are forced to migrate, while their mineral rich land is handed over to corporations. FRA, PESA, SAMATA Bills should be considered as influencing legislations towards this LARR Bill. New comprehensive legislation must be subjected to FRA, PESA, Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act, Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act and various other pro-people legislations. Even in British times the Agency areas came under a separate governance process. A clear procedure should also be laid down as to how the affected families are determined, at what stage and by whom.

The definition of Affected Family as given in sub sections (iii) and (iv) under Section 3(c) includes tribals and other forest dwellers. The Forest Rights Act 2006 was a conceptual recognition of the rights of tribals and other traditional forest dwellers over forest land. Land acquisition of forest land is therefore a complete negation of the FRA 2006, denying rights to tribals.

5.

No agricultural land should be forcefully acquired

Food security & sovereignty for all must be the top priority of inclusive development. This also serves public interest from the point of view of basic survival as well as agricultural livelihood earnings. The objective should be to develop land to ensure food security & sovereignty for all and profitability for agriculturists. Therefore sustainable inputs to enhance agricultural land should be the focus; not Land Acquisition that kills the land for monetary benefits of a few.

Transfer of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes amounts to terminating living land, neither will it be productive nor possible to convert it to its original form. Mapping of agricultural land must be undertaken first to ensure food security.

Land utilisation for agrarian purposes is a highly productive and essential public purpose. Hence, before using agricultural land for any other purpose, a detailed mapping of agricultural land is imperative for the food security goals of the entire country. It is, therefore, recommended under Section10 that no agricultural land - be it single crop or multi-crop - should be forcefully acquired.

6.

Land Titling Bill needs to be assessed to fully understand LARR, 2011

Land Titling Bill as introduced in 2007 also needs to be looked at closely while studying the LARR; it is not just the updation of land records, but the ownership and use which is structured in many, complex ways titles, mortgage, tenancy etc. Marketability of land gets established as a database for possible purchase and transfer of land. Element of creating land banks arises

7. Bureaucracy given too much of a role; lower strata of governance should be enabled with more clear democratic role
There should be a common platform to plan this in a relevant way; the Panchayat can be used as an effective platform. Land in village; dispute in village; problem in village but decisions taken elsewhere.

Who decides on land use and cropping patterns the land user or administration? It should be the farmer/adivasi and not the Collector. The right to refuse should be respected. Appropriate government needs to be more clearly defined, mechanisms of governance can be later manipulated and misused. as these

8.

The Consent clause needs to be defined more clearly with each announcement of projects for public interest

The right to refuse needs to be respected wherever there is no urgency clause. The term public interest must clearly outline its procedure, the beneficiaries, and extent of benefit, during each announcement of projects for public purpose. Government must also be brought within the ambit of the consent clause of 80% of the affected communities

The consent Section3 (za) under the definition of Public purpose for subsections (vi) and (vii) allows for the consent of 80% of affected families for the provision of land in the public interest. The term public interest, as stated in the above sub-clauses needs to answer the questions of who it benefits and to what extent. This needs to be ensured during each process of announcement of public purpose. Also, a clear procedure should be laid down as to how this consent is to be ascertained. Such a process of referendum should be conducted after adequate prior information dissemination, display and publicity of all details related to the project. In addition to this, it is also recommended to bring government within the ambit of the consent clause of 80% of the affected communities.

9. Partial acquisition must also entail 80% consent of the affected families.

Section 2 (2) refers to partial acquisition of land by government for private companies. 80% consent of affected families does not apply to this section. It is very likely that private parties could later seek to circumvent this majority consent by resorting to this section. It is therefore recommended to define the term partial acquisition so as to still ensure 80% consent.

10. Social

Impact Assessment study and Environment Impact Assessment study should be a mandatory precondition and not limited to a minimum of 100 acres.

SIA must ensure the involvement of lowest levels of democracy such as Gram Sabhas/equivalent bodies in urban areas in the whole process. SIA and EIA must be mandatory before finalization of every instance of land acquisition Who will be mandated to conduct the SIA?

Introduction of Social Impact Assessment in Chapter 2 is a welcome provision in the Bill. Both the Social Impact Assessment and Environment Impact Assessment studies should be mandatory preconditions before finalizing every instance of land acquisition irrespective of any quantum of land being acquired (even if it is less than 100 acres). The participation of lowest levels of democracy such as Gram Sabhas/equivalent bodies in urban areas should be ensured in the whole process. In addition to this, customary laws, cultures, values, belief systems, consumption patterns, crop patterns, etc. and also the existing socio-economic context of the area must be kept in mind while assessing social impact.

11.

EIA should prioritise waste irregularised and unutilized land.

land,

disputed

land,

Section 6(2) speaks about Environment Impact Assessment in continuation with the process of Social Impact Assessment. It is recommended that the EIA should follow the process of recognition of waste land, dispute land, orange area, irregularised and unutilized land, in an attempt to prioritise such land for acquisition.

12.

No procedure is outlined in the event of a majority objection at the public hearing.

Section 5 speaks about ensuring a public hearing to be held at the affected area, which will be recorded and included in the Social Impact Assessment Report. This is a positive point of the Bill. However there is no procedure outlined in the case of an objection to the proposed acquisition at the public hearing.

13.

Process of land acquisition should only start rehabilitation is fully and fairly completed.

after

Until rehabilitation is not completed, the land use cannot be changed or transferred. E.g Ghosikude, Maharashtra: notified in 1983; inaugurated in 1988 but R&R process and land still on hold Just and fair rehabilitation has been converted to just and fair compensation. The procedure for compensation awards need to be fair, transparent and responsibly handled so that no further drifts within the affected communities could be caused over compensation amounts.

It should be ensured that process of land acquisition will only start when rehabilitation is fully and fairly completed. Failing to do so, the concerned company as defined under Section 80 (2) or the Government department must be made liable under sections 80 and 81. In addition to this, the Bill must emphasize on providing just and fair rehabilitation instead just and fair compensation as stated in the Statement of Objects and Reasons in the Bill.

14.

Original value of land should be estimated at final end use rates for transaction with primary holder.

90% of the increased price is to be accrued to the original land owners when the land is re-sold at higher prices by the Government.

The Bill also has a loophole wherein the Government can be identified as a real estate agent, accumulating land banks and selling portions at a later stage when the prices are higher. However, the original landowners do not reap the benefits of these higher prices. Therefore, a Section should be inserted in Rehabilitation and Resettlement provision that in all cases where the land which has been acquired by government and sold to a private company, 90% of the increased price is to be accrued to the original land owners.

15.

Minimum size of land for Rehabilitation and Resettlement not acceptable.

Process of R & R will be applicable only if the size of land equals or exceeds 100 acres in rural areas as given in Bill. This needs to be addressed, as how does it secure the 99 acre factor. R&R provisions must be applicable to acquisitions under various central and state statues.

Section42(1) states that Rehabilitation and Resettlement provisions become applicable only if the size of the land equals or exceeds 100 acres in rural areas and 50 acres in urban areas. This could be a dire loophole in favor of private companies through which land could be bought in many phases and never reach the minimum acres mark as given in Section42(1). Furthermore, the operations of this act (R & R) need to be extended to acquisitions under various central and state statutes (such as Highways Act, etc.).

16.

A process for enabling free, prior, informed consent through dialogue, communication and grievance redressal has to be developed.

A provision for free, prior, informed public consent needs to be included under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement provision under chapter V. A process for enabling informed consent has to be developed while ensuring that there is proper representation of the affected communities. Furthermore, effective participation of the concerned populace has to be ensured through a process of dialogue, communication and grievance redressal. All such processes should be followed within local forms of expression (local language and customary laws).

17.

Farmers/ Adivasi should be given rights to decide on the kind of land

Who will decide on the kind of land it should be Adivasi / farmer and not Collector. Land for Land compensation must not be compromised. Rehabilitation and Resettlement Provision must also specify the procedure for resettling the community land.

Section 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38 give special powers to the Collector ranging from awarding the compensation to taking possession of the land. It seems that the Rehabilitation and Resettlement provision principally negates the Resource for Resource Compensation formula while including Land for Land concept in serial number 2 of Second Schedule. Farmers/Adivasis should be given rights to identify and determine the nature of the land; and therefore demand resource compensation on the basis of that.

18. Lands to be distributed should be properly regularized with the participation of affected communities

It should be ensured that lands to be distributed as given in the serial number 2 of the Second Schedule should follow the broader process of recognition of waste land (orange area/irregularised land/dispute land), regularizing the waste land, improving and converting the waste land to agricultural land in accordance with the crop pattern, customary laws and food habits.

19.

Compensation amount must be reviewed

One acre compensation land inadequate. R & R bill must include a provision of reviewing the compensation as per the existing market rate after every ten years. A clear procedure of who will calibrate the amounts and on what basis must also be specified in the Bill.

The compensation of 1 acre of land, as given in the serial number 2 of the Second Schedule is inadequate. This needs to be reviewed and increased in accordance with amount of land area acquired and the number of dependents in the family. The compensation for R & R entitlements must also be reviewed in accordance with the socio-economic and cultural context of the area and sustained livelihood.

20.

Determination of value of land outdated/incorrect land records is illogical.

based

on

The determination of market value of land for purpose of compensation under section 26 is based upon the records available with the Registrar. This is illogical in terms of ensuring peoples rights under Rehabilitation and Resettlement objectives. It is recommended that the current market value of transactions in the vicinity should be taken into consideration while ascertaining the value of the land.

21.

Urban Compensation for urban land acquisitions must be reviewed in accordance with the most effective legislatives

With the wider definition of project affected persons and their subsequent dependence on various sources of livelihoods, the Rehabilitation package of the

Bangalore Metro Rail Project should be taken into consideration as Relief package for land acquisition under urban projects within R & R.

22.

Rights over water to be prioritized.

It is recommended that prioritization of water for (a)drinking, (b)agriculture and (c)industry needs to be ascertained while spelling out the Rehabilitation and Resettlement packages for the affected communities.

23.

Provision to file objections from the affected families must be included.

Rural context is being altered in the neo-liberal era; the rate of urbanization is high; tens of thousands of urban villages created. There should be a common platform to plan this in a relevant way; the Panchayat can be used as an effective platform. Land in village; dispute in village; problem in village but decisions taken elsewhere.

With respect to section 5A of LAA 1894, the bill must make a provision for the affected family to file objections with regard to the extent and choice of land within 60 days of issuance of the preliminary notification. All the proceedings with regard to the objections raised by the affected family must involve active participation of Gram Sabha. Disputes raised by the affected families should not only be dealt by the collector but a Zilla Panchayat member should also be kept in the loop and the final resolution must be determined by the gram sabha. All the documents must be easily available for a fair, transparent and unbiased judgment.

24. Consultations with smallest social unit essential to guarantee rights to the affected population.

Point numbers 6 and 7 of the Statement of Objects and Reasons as given by Honorable Minister in the Bill establishes the importance of Rehabilitation and

Resettlement to ensure the protection of rights of the affected population. This is a very positive approach of the Honorable Minister. It is recommended that from the very first step of Land Acquisition i.e. from planning stage itself, consultations with the smallest social unit (hamlet or village in the rural areas or Basti or Area Sabha in urban areas) should be facilitated.

25.

Private companies should be included under the purview of Land Ceiling Act.

It is recommended that all private companies are included under the purview of the Land Ceiling Act to ensure effective implementation of the Land Reform legislations in various states.

26.

The comprehensive nature consortium of ministries

of

the

Bill

calls

for

The objectives of the Bill include numbers of public interests as defined in the definition of Public Purpose under section 3 (za). Therefore, the bill must be a comprehensive one and hence calls for a consortium of ministries including Ministry of Rural Development, Tribal Affairs, Social Justice and Environment, Environment and Forest, Mining, Railways, Human Resource Development among others to collectively take this process forward.

27.

A National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Committee to look into R&R of affected communities of ongoing as well as retrospective projects (who have not yet been rehabilitated).

The Bill envisages towards establishing a National Monitoring Committee for Rehabilitation and Resettlement under sections 43 and 44. It is, however, recommended to set up a National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Committee

which will not only address the R & R claims of affected communities of ongoing projects, but also ensure proper rehabilitation of affected communities affected due to land acquisitions since independence.

28.

Role of Advocacy Groups

Wherever there are Land Acquisition Struggles, a consultation process must be initiated with the participation of Peoples Organisations who are working on the issues of rights and control over resources. It is recommended that the Parliamentary Committee also visits the places where the struggles resisting acquisition of land are ongoing, so as to understand the grassroots in this context.

29.

The Fourth Schedule dilutes the objective of Rehabilitation and Resettlement by including a wider list of regulating legislations.

Fourth schedule needs to be removed from the Bill All ongoing and new projects must involve the lowest levels of democracy in the whole process of LARR and should not be conflated with other legislations.

The List of Legislations Regulating Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement as given under The Fourth Schedule is uncomfortable territory and must be addressed. The Schedule dilutes the objective of Rehabilitation and Resettlement by including a wider list of regulating legislations. It is recommended that all ongoing and new development projects be subjected to decentralized and democratic consent from the lowest levels of democracy i.e. Gram Sabhas in rural areas and Basti Sabhas in urban areas; and should not be conflated with any other legislations in the name of inevitable ambiguous definitions of development and urbanisation.

30.

Positive aspects:
Much better compensation/ remuneration packages: but calibration and measure of value and choice and role of decision makers is ambiguous Inclusion of secondary and tertiary affected groups e.g share-croppers etc in R&R: but how do they secure entitlements with no records; who will grant them their due? Social Impact Assessment important inclusion: but not clear who will be equipped and authorized to execute SIA This Bill can be constitutionally challenged, unlike the LA 1894 R&R policy integrated as a part of LA: however this also plays acquisition and transfer out as a fait accompli Offences for the first time officials come under the purview of offences: still to be specified and detailed. _______________________________________