Synopsis:

 Land acquisition is a concurrent list matter i.e. only center can make laws. But with the recourse
to Article 254 (2), which says the state legislature can pass an amendment and if that
amendment is repugnant to the central law, it will have to go to the President for assent. Since
the BJP government is at the center and majority number of states amending the acts by states
is a easy task. For example: Multiplying factor for computing compensation for the land acquired
is 2 for ruler areas and 1 for urban. Government of Haryana, Chhattisgarh and Tripura fixed it 1
and government of Telangana 1.5 instead of 2 for rural areas. The government of Gujrat and
have exempted the five types of projects mentioned in the ordinance from consent and SIA.
 RR does not apply when private companies acquire land under 100 acers and 50 acers in rural
and urban areas, respectively. Private companies try to acquire through its subsidiaries such that
each subsidiary acquire land below the RR requirement.
 In case of Indore development authority v Manoharlal court held that compensation we will
considered paid the moment it is tendered by the government. The government exploit this
provision as officials sit on the files for years and fear processing the compensation amount to
landowners account fearing media trials and judicial activism
 The enactment of Special Economic Zone (SEZ) Act 2005 allows the government to transfer the
land acquired for public purpose under the Land Acquisition Act to the private companies for
development. LARR provides government acquisition exemption from consent clause. This
brings back the arbitrariness of Land acquisition act, 1894.
 Definition of “affected family” includes a “family residing on any land in the urban areas for
preceding three years prior to the acquisition of the land or whose primary source of livelihood
for three years prior to the acquisition of the land is affected by the acquisition of such land”
Does it mean that, the De-Soto model of formalization of title is a necessary pre-requisite for
residence-for any benefits of LARR to go to the urban poor, in the event the land they occupy is
acquired or would mere proof of use suffice? Would hawkers on the street whose primary
livelihoods are affected stand on a better footing under the LARR Bill than others who squat on
public lands whose primary livelihoods are not affected.
 The act mentions due process to carry out the acquisition but says noting about the checks on
the bureaucrats. The actions of officials acting under the act must come under RTI.
 In order to make the process of land acquisition efficient for the displaced, it is necessary on the
part of the state either to clearly define the “public purpose” for which the land is being
acquired or to make provisions for the dispossessed so that they can challenge the notion of
“public purpose” in the court. For instance, America has not defined the “public purpose” for
which the land is being acquired but has provisions for challenging the notion of “public
purpose” in the court of law.
 LARR has been criticized by economics and entrepreneurs as it makes the land acquisition
process much costly and lengthy which discourage investment by private companies. Court look
at the land acquisition from compassionate point of view rather than development and hence
the Niyamgiri mining projects. Thus, there is a need for the model of development that is not
based on pareto efficiency concept i.e. nobody loose and nobody gain. This can be done if land is
purchased rather than being acquired.