Land Acquisition and Compensation in

India: Mysteries of Valuation 1st ed.

2020 Edition Sattwick Dey Biswas
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/land-acquisition-and-compensation-in-india-mysteries
-of-valuation-1st-ed-2020-edition-sattwick-dey-biswas/
Land Acquisition
and Compensation
in India
Mysteries of Valuation
SAT T W IC K DE Y BI S WA S
 Land Acquisition and Compensation in India

“Karl Polanyi called labor a fictitious commodity. Land is even more problematic.
Land is mere imagined latency expressed along a continuum of contending dreams.
How could land possibly have a single value to a diverse community of dreamers?
Sattwick Dey Biswas sheds important light on the meaning of land in two expro-
priation cases in West Bengal, India. The empirical research is exemplary, the theo-
retical ground is well developed, and the findings are robust. The value of a parcel
of land is not discovered. Rather, that value is created as various contending mean-
ings of land are expressed, debated, and finally resolved.”
—Daniel W. Bromley, Anderson-Bascom Professor of Applied Economics
(Emeritus), University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA

“This book is an incisive analysis of the multiple uses and values of land in contem-
porary India. Rooted in a careful reading of classical theories of value and valua-
tion, Dey Biswas guides us closer to an understanding of why the vexed problem
of land dispossession and displacement refuses to go away. Readers interested in
the ongoing land grab in the global south and their associated conflicts would do
well to consult this thought-provoking book.”
—Kenneth Bo Nielsen, Associate Professor, Department of Social Anthropology,
The Centre for Development and the Environment, Oslo University, Norway and
Coordinator, Norwegian Network of Asian Studies

“This book combines deeper reflections on the theories of property valuation and
social question with two exciting cases of land acquisition in India. The book is a
marvellous exposition that valuation as frame provides the most worthwhile lens
for a public policy scholar.”
—Sony Pellissery, Executive Director, Institute of Public Policy (NLSIU),
Bangalore, India

“This book explores valuation of land from a theoretical perspective with empirical
evidence from a case study analysis in India. One of the strongest points of the
book is that it recaps the theoretical development of value and valuation in great
detail and therewith provides a comprehensive and almost exhaustive theoretical
framework on valuation–starting from Adam Smith to more recent approaches of
plural land values. An important book for everyone who is concerned with land
markets, land appraisal and land economics!”
—Thomas Hartmann, Associate Professor, Environmental Science, Wageningen
University, The Netherlands
“Sattwick Dey Biswas’s important book constructs a bridge between usually dis-
connected areas of knowledge: law of expropriation (compulsory purchase), gen-
erations of philosophy of land and economics, and the often-enigmatic practices of
the land valuators. Dr Dey Biswas merges together a set of complex concepts with
Ben Davy’s exciting “plural values of land”. Through a brilliant research method,
he then succeeds in operationalizing these concepts into a tool to gauge the opin-
ions of stakeholders in real-life expropriation cases in India. The book is intellectu-
ally challenging – as it should be – but is also very well written. The mystery of
valuation may never be solved, but this book certainly lays out the path in the right
direction.”
—Professor Rachelle Alterman, Technion–Israel Institute of Technology and
Founding President – International Academic Association on Planning,
Law and Property Rights
 Sattwick Dey Biswas

Land Acquisition and

Compensation in
India
Mysteries of Valuation
Sattwick Dey Biswas
Institute of Public Policy
National Law School of India University
Bengaluru, India

ISBN 978-3-030-29480-9    ISBN 978-3-030-29481-6 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29481-6

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer
Nature Switzerland AG 2020
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of
translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval,
electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now
known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information
in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the
­publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to
the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The
publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
­institutional affiliations.

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG.
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 Author’s Note

This book draws from the author’s dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of
the requirements for the degree of Doctor rerum politicarum (Dr. rer. pol.) at
School of Spatial Planning, TU Dortmund University, Germany

School of Spatial Planning

Sattwick Dey Biswas
TU Dortmund University
Dortmund, Germany
Institute of Public Policy
National Law School of India University
Bengaluru, India

v
 Acknowledgement

I am indebted to several people for their support and assistance over the
course of the writing of this thesis. I am thankful to Benjamin Davy who
always provided valuable and critical feedback and challenged me in every
step of my writing. He has also kept his faith in this Social Work and Social
Policy student who has dared to write on the political economy of land at
the School of Spatial Planning, TU Dortmund University. I am also grate-
ful to Thomas Hartmann, the first reviewer of the work, for guiding me in
very “crucial” moments of writing. Without his constant support, it was
not possible to finish the project.
I am indebted to the Editor, Alina Yurova, and the Editorial Assistant,
Mary Fata, for their editorial help, keen insight, and ongoing support in
bringing ‘the mysteries of valuation’ to life. It is because of Alina’s trust in
this novice writer and Mary’s constant support that I have managed to
publish it. Rachel Moore and Ms. Sudha Soundarrajan (and her team)
were extremely patient with my errors during the production of the book.
I would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their time, atten-
tion, and constructive feedback.
In the rest of the acknowledgements, whenever more than one name
will be mentioned, the appearance will follow the alphabetical order of the
first name and without academic or honorary titles. Also, in the absence of
an appropriate English word, throughout the writing, I could not indicate
the third gender in the appropriate places along with ‘he’ and ‘she’. At
various stages of writing this, Amitabh Mukherjee, Anna Rodermund, Jan
Russell, Subin Sundar Raj, and Roberto Casablanca managed to share
their valuable time in correcting my grammatical mistakes and I am grateful

vii
viii Acknowledgement

to them. The final proofreading is done by Jan Russell, for which I am in

debt. Any remaining errors are mine.
Doctoral study is a journey, and it took time to get admission and a lot
more to produce this work. It was in Bali, Indonesia, that I had my first
international exposure, which was facilitated by the late David S. Kung, a
nomad and amateur cultural anthropologist. With his encouragement, I
became curious about land and cultural plurality, and even more so after
interacting with Avi Hazuria, Ayu Ratna, Komang Ayu, Betty W., Claire
Dassonval, Gary Howlett, Gotardo Egidia, Jan Russell, Sonia Cazzanello,
and my friends in Bali. Upon my return to Santiniketan, India, where I
grew up from the age of six, some of my professors at the Social Work
Department at Visva-Bharati, such as Ashok Kr. Sarkar, Debatosh Sinha,
Kumkum Bhattacharya, Paramita Roy, and Prashanta Kr. Ghosh contin-
ued to encourage me to push my limits. During this time, Manohar Power,
Vishanthie Swapoul, and Lena Dominelli reminded me about dignity and
human rights issues in land.
The opportunity to thoroughly investigate land issues came under the
guidance of Sony Pellissery, who took on this unworthy Social Work grad-
uate as a research assistant at the Institute of Rural Management Anand
(IRMA), India. During the year that I stayed at IRMA (Institute of Rural
Management Anand), I learned a lot through my work and through infor-
mal discussions with Ajit Choudhury, Anand Venkatesh, Debashish Maitra,
Partha Sarathi Roy, Prakash Moirangthem, Ravikiran Naik, Satyendra
Nath Mishra, and Sudipa Sarkar. Till today, Debashish, Satyen, and Sudipa
discuss economic theories with me whenever I contact them.
I thank the Norwegian Quota Scholarship for fully funding my
Master of International Social Welfare and Health Policy (MIS) at Oslo
Metropolitan University. I was fortunate to learn a great many things
from Einar Overbye, Erika Gubrium, Ivar Lødemel, and Ivan Harsløf
at Oslo Metropolitan University, with appropriate support from Anne
Marie Møgster and Stuart Arthur Deakin. I wrote my master thesis with
Benjamin Davy and became an informal part of the FLOOR (Financial
Assistance (Social Cash Transfers), Land Policy, and Global Social Rights)1
team at TU Dortmund University, Germany, via Skype. Some of the team
members were Astrid Maurer, Heinz Kobs, Jackline Kabahinda, Melanie
Halfter, Michael Kolocek, Nadine Preuss, Sepideh Abaii, and Yitu Yang,
with appropriate support from Susanne Syska. Also, email communications
with Benjamin Lockwood, Gemma Burgess, Joseph Persky, Robin Burgess,
Daniel W. Bromley, and Mercedes Stickler were particularly helpful.
 Acknowledgement  ix

My earlier understanding of economic theory was further nurtured by

Kaushik Basu, theories of political economy by Haragopal G., and legal
theories by Chiradeep Basak, Subin Sundar Raj, Saika Sabbir, Saumya
Uma, Vanishree Radhakrishna, and Vikram Raghavan. On the other hand,
the Poverty and Shame project gave me the opportunity to interact with
and learn from Robert Walker, Elaine Chase, Lichao Yang, Leah Johnston,
Aline Gubrium, and Grace Bantebya, along with Heidi Bergsli and Biju
A. The support from Shashikala, G. Lakshmi, and Nagesh should be
acknowledged.
At the Chair of Bodenpolitik, Bodenmanagement, Kommunales
Vermessungswesen,2 I reunited with the members of the former FLOOR
team plus Julija Bakunowitsch. At the school of spatial planning, I am
thankful to Christoph Kohlmeyer, Franziska Sielker, Genet Alem, Ludger
Basten, Sabine Baumgart, Teresa Elizabeth Sprague, and Wolfgang Scholz.
Thanks, Michael, for over a hundred lunches at the ‘mensa’ and our
thoughtful discussions. I discussed my research issues with a number of
individuals at various stages of this research, some of whose names should
be indicated here: Barbara Harris-White, Bertold Bongardt, Christopher
John Webster, Erika Gubrium, Gabriel Cleopas Shamboo, Jilan Hosni,
Indranil Sarkar, Ivan Harslf, Ivar Lødemel, Kaushik Basu, Kenneth Bo
Nielsen, Nalinava Sengupta, Paramita Roy, Ric Paris, Roberto Casablanca,
Sattwati De Biswas, Satyendra Nath Mishra, Sony Pellissery, Subin Sundar
Raj, Sudipa Sarkar, Sugata Goswami, Tanima Sengupta, Rachelle Alterman,
Ram Singh, Vikram Raghavan, and Yoram Barzel. I also thank participants
of South Asia Across the Nordic Region 2018 (Oslo), PLPR 2017 (Hong
Kong), PLPR-SARC 2015 (Bangalore), and Land and Poverty 2015
(Washington DC) for their valuable feedback on my work.
Due to confidentiality agreements, I could not include all the names of
the generous individuals who ensured access to data at the grassroots level.
Without their cooperation, I would not have managed to collect the data
required for this study. I can only mention Abinandan Sen, Biswajit
Ganguli, Tapan Kumar Maiti, and Ranjan Chatterjee, who assisted me in
navigating the bureaucracy and reaching the data collection area. Also, the
members of Institutional Strengthening of Gram Panchayats (ISGP)
Program II such as Ananya Chowdhury, Arijit Roy, Chandan Maji, Sandip
Sarkar, Suvajit Sural, and Gourav Ghosh. Many representatives of human
rights groups shared their deep knowledge and experiences of land issues;
I can only indicate Ujjaini Halim, but also thank those others who wish to
keep their identities confidential.
x Acknowledgement

I should also mention a few other names from Santiniketan, India, such
as Avik Ghosh, Suprio Tagore, and Susobhan Adhikary, along with Amitab
Mukherjee, Gargi Ghosh, Kishor Bhattacharya, Mousumi Aadhikary,
Pulak Dutta, Rati Basu, Sonali Majumdar, Subhra Tagore, Subhrangsu
Sen, and Sugata Hazra. The support I received at various stages of my life
from Arabinduda, (late) Shivaditya Sen, Shantabhanu Sen, and other
members of the Pratichi Trust, Santiniketan, should also be acknowl-
edged. I would like to thank Rinson Jose, Sayannita Mallik, Susanta
Bhattacharya Zoheath Tsh. Lepcha, and Partha Sarathi Mondal for giving
me confidence and support in the difficult times. Canara Bank, Jadavpur,
provided much needed educational loan to meet the funding gap for
this project.
I will fondly remember my wonderful flatmates, Andrzej Czeremanski
and Michael Naebert, for giving me their time, space, and listening to me,
along with Chloe, Basheer, Saptarshi, Sudipa, Rinson, Tatijana, and
Dortmunder Philharmoniker. I am grateful to Doris Bongardt and
Manfred Harm for the care that they have shown to me and for sharing
their deep knowledge about Germany. I am lucky to be hosted by you!
Finally, to Anna, Avikda, Ayan, Esmeralda, Lars, Linnéa, Monimala,
Subin, and my family: thanks for the life force!

Dortmund, 2019 Sattwick Dey Biswas

Notes
1. More at http://www.floorgroup.raumplanung.tu-dortmund.de/joomla/
index.php
2. More at http://www.bbv.raumplanung.tu-dortmund.de/
 Contents

1 Mysteries of Valuation  1
1.1 The Problematique  1
1.2 Introduction  2
1.3 Monorational(s) in Polyrational 12
1.4 Utilitarianism: Unavoidable Policy Rules? 15
Bibliography 20

2 Value: The Epistemology 27

2.1 Smith: Value Presented Through Price 32
2.2 Bentham: Value of a Lot of Pleasure or Pain 33
2.3 Who Decides What Is Best for Whom: Mill 36
2.4 Evaluation of Theories: Ricardo, Malthus, Marx 38
2.4.1 Ricardo: A Duel with Smith’s Paradox 38
2.4.2 Malthus’s Theory of Value 43
2.4.3 Karl Marx and Labour Theory of Value 46
Bibliography 49

3 Value: The Marginal Revolution 53

3.1 Von Thünen: A Case of Isolated State 54
3.2 Social Phenomena: The Marginal Revolution Way 59
3.3 Jevons: “Calculus of Pleasure and Pain” 63
3.4 Menger: A Distance from Explicit Measurements 66
3.5 Walras: “As If Utility Is Measurable” 70
3.6 Von Wieser’s the Natural Value 72
Bibliography 76

xi
xii Contents

4 Value: The Contemporary Ideas 81

4.1 No Chaos: Coase’s Perfect Valuation 81
4.2 Capabilities Approach and Valuation 86
4.3 Unifying Grand Theories: Plural Values 88
4.4 Location: Contemporary Schools of Valuation of Land 95
4.5 Evolution of Theories of Value: A Summary100
Bibliography106

5 The Empirical Context: Cases, Legal Context, and Theory

of Science111
5.1 The Locations(s)111
5.2 The Legal Context114
5.2.1 The Indian Constitution, Laws, and Beyond115
5.2.2 Singur Judgement: A Twist with Public Purpose and
Procedural Justice124
5.2.3 Post-Singur Judgement: A Way Forward127
5.3 The Bridge Between Theory and Data129
5.3.1 Objectives of the Research131
5.3.2 Design132
5.3.3 Methodological Challenges133
5.3.4 Data Collection135
5.3.5 Data Analysis138
5.3.6 Ethical and Other Considerations140
Bibliography144

6 Empirical Evidence: Relationship, Attributes, and Plural

Values of Land151
6.1 Relationship with Land154
6.2 Attributes of Land160
6.3 Value of Land165
6.3.1 Value of Land as Commodity or Exchange Value of
Land165
6.3.2 Value of Land as Territory or Territorial Values of
Land171
6.3.3 Value of Land as Capability or Use Value of Land172
6.3.4 Ecological or Existential Value of Land176
6.3.5 Plural Values177
6.3.6 Valuation Procedure of Land179
Bibliography187
 Contents  xiii

7 Empirical Evidence: Negotiations, Smith’s Value, and

Limits of Monetary Price191
7.1 Negotiations191
7.1.1 Issues of Consent194
7.1.2 Role of the Brokers196
7.1.3 Role of Others197
7.2 Value as Price202
Bibliography212

8 Empirical Evidence: Future and Ideal Values of Land213

8.1 Land: Future Use213
8.2 Life After Land Acquisition/Transaction216
8.2.1 Hypothetical Life217
8.2.2 Actual Life222
8.3 ‘How Much Is Too Much and Too Little’231
Bibliography232

9 Conclusions233
Bibliography251

Appendix255

Bibliography271

Index291
 Abbreviations

AIR All India Reporter

BDO Block Development Officer
BL & LRO Block Land & Land Revenue Office
CBA Cost-Benefit Analysis
CBD Central Business District
EU European Union
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
FGD Focus Group Discussion
GOI Government of India
ILO International Labour Organisation
INR/Rs. India Rupees (Indian currency)
IPC Indian Penal Code
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation/Civil Society
Organisation
OHCHR Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Human Rights
RICS Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors
SC Scheduled Caste
SC (Indian court cases) Supreme Court of India
SCC Supreme Court Cases of India
SCR Supreme Court Reports of India
ST Scheduled Tribe
UN United Nations
UNCHR United Nations Council of Human Rights
UN-HABITAT United Nations Human Settlements Programme
USPAP Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice
WB World Bank

xv
 List of Explanations

English Bengali Explanations

Zamindar জমিদার Land lord

(Jamidāra)
Bigha বিঘা (Bighā) 1600 yd2 (0.1338 hectare or 0.3306 acre); everyday
interpretation as 1/3 acre
Katha কাঠা (Kāt ̣hā) 720 square feet (67 m2), and 20 katha equals 1 bigha
Sher সের (Sēra) 0.933 kg
Mon মন (Mana) 40 Sher or 37.32 kg
Al আল (Ā la) Earthen ridge marking the physical boundary of land,
usually not more than a foot high. Dual purpose, it acts as
both boundary of land and dyke
Khas খাস (Khāsa) Possession of land by a proprietor or tenure-holder, either
by cultivating the land himself or with hired labour
Contingent The approach delay on individuals to directly indicate
valuation method their willingness to pay (WTP) to obtain a specific thing or
capture their willingness to accept (WTA) giving up a
thing
Bhadralok ভদ্রল�োক Gentlemen
(Bhadralōka)
Dam দাম (Dāma) Monetary price
Mulya মূল্য (Mūlya) Value, worth, price, cost and similar other meanings

xvii
 List of Figures

Fig. 1.1 Map: Locations of the case study areas 10

Fig. 5.1 Map: Location of Singur 112
Fig. 5.2 Map: Location of Salboni 113

xix
 List of Tables

Table 5.1 Coding rules for qualitative data analysis software 139
Table 6.1 Composition of participants: individual interviews 153
Table 9.1 Rubric: Compensation against the land by including plural
values248

xxi
 CHAPTER 1

Mysteries of Valuation

1.1   The Problematique

Many debates have taken place after a failed expropriation attempt in
Singur, West Bengal, India (Chandra et al. 2015; Ghatak et al. 2013;
Nielsen and Majumder 2017). Singur triggered a socio-political upheaval
from 2006, when the state of West Bengal decided to acquire approxi-
mately 997 acres of land to enable TATA Motors Limited to construct a
car manufacturing factory. Citizens of the area led a movement against the
land acquisition and forced TATA motors to leave the almost-finished fac-
tory. The incident has triggered a national and international awakening,
which has no intention of dying down soon. The never answered question
was, is, and (perhaps) always will be: “What is the value of land?” Answering
this question may lead us towards unearthing the meaning of adequate
compensation for land being expropriated by the state for industrialisation
or infrastructure development. The failure to answer this question lies in
broad theoretical and conceptual problems inherited within the valuation
of land doctrine. This intuition is supported by the work of many scholars
throughout history (discussed in Chaps. 2, 3 and 4). The issues concern-
ing the valuation of land are discernible at three levels, from individual to
social preferences.
First, valuation is a process of finding the value of a thing according to
a socially acceptable standard; thus (the issue is that) it is difficult to
include a broad range of individual standards (plural values; Anderson
1993/1995; Davy 2012) into a single socially acceptable and just ­standard.

© The Author(s) 2020 1

S. Dey Biswas, Land Acquisition and Compensation in India,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29481-6_1
2 S. DEY BISWAS

This issue is raised at the base level, where the individuals’ unique valua-
tion standards are contested against a particular social standard.
Second, the modern valuation of land doctrine has more or less accepted
that the exchange value also includes use (and plural) value of land.
Therefore, the issue is that the monetary ‘price’ presents use value and
exchange value of land. The question is in how far the existing literature
and empirical evidence are equating plural values represented in the mon-
etary price, and also whether they (literature and empirical evidence) are
in fact equating at all. At the secondary level, the issue is whether mone-
tary price represents plural values.
This takes us to the third issue at the highest level—whether all land
should have a value represented in monetary price as per the existing valu-
ation of land doctrine: should there be a price for the grave of Gandhi,
Martin Luther King, Mandela, Native American sacred sites in the United
States? What would be the real estate value of the Vatican, Mecca,
Jerusalem, Lumbini, and the Golden Temple of Amritsar? Critics might
claim that if there is a value represented in monetary price, then this might
not become an issue unless and until such property is transacted. Such an
issue will not be solved when a follow-up question is raised, that is, is the
value of the sacred places of Native Americans or Scheduled Tribes in
India more or less valuable than others? These issues operating at different
levels constitute ‘the mysteries of valuation’ which this research wants to
explore theoretically and empirically with the help of case studies
located in India.

1.2   Introduction
The terms ‘eminent domain’, ‘land acquisition’, ‘compulsory purchase’,
‘compulsory acquisition’, ‘expropriation’, and ‘resumption’ all have a
more or less similar legal meaning in the constitutions, case laws, and leg-
islations of different countries of the world (Brown 1971; FAO 2012).1 A
quick summary of these legal terms would be the power of a state and
state-approved bodies to take private property and common property for
public use in exchange for legally defined compensation packages for
affected individuals (Black 2014).2 The compensation for the land is often
based on the valuation of the land (Alterman and Balla 2010; Davy 2012;
Evans 2004; Ghatak and Ghosh 2015; Holland 1970; Mahalingam and
Vyas 2011; Singh 2012). Therefore, an educated guess would be that a
more scientific valuation technique can take us closer to a just procedure
 1 MYSTERIES OF VALUATION 3

and outcome (or an improvement3 on existing social reality, as claimed by

Sen 2010a, b) during land acquisition, if not remedy the feeling of injus-
tice among all (Davy 1997). The educated guess gains credence through
the observations of various international and multilateral bodies (EU
2017; FAO 2012; ILO 1989; OHCHR 2015; UN-HABITAT 2012;
World Bank 2017) and of independent research, which indicate that inac-
curacy in valuation can lead to the violation of human rights and constitu-
tional rights (Ambaye 2015; Cernea 2008; Chakravorty 2013; Cotula
et al. 2014; Davis and Heathcote 2007; Pellissery and Dey Biswas 2012;
Sarkar 2007).
Throughout the world, a large area of land has been acquired by the
state and approved bodies and leased or bought by private enterprises. At
a global level, according to the Land Matrix,4 recently acquired land deals
in 63 low- and middle-income countries have been estimated at 44 million
hectares (2016). More future acquisition is, in fact, possible as the World
Bank identified a potential 445 million hectares for large-scale land invest-
ments (Deininger and Byerlee 2011). In the so-called developed world,
the issue is defined not only by the size of the land in question but also by
existing legal protections of the land owners and users in terms of land
acquisition and compensation packages (Azuela and Herrera 2007),
whereas in the Global South, large-scale land deals do not necessarily tar-
get ‘idle’ or ‘marginal’ land (Messerli et al. 2015). This rapid and vast land
acquisition can lead to conflicts.
India is one country of the Global South which has been witnessing
such a land acquisition drive. The intensity and number of anti-land acqui-
sition conflicts, where unwilling land owners/users and the state or other
statutory bodies fight against each other during land acquisition attempts,
is quite substantial, and a few estimates suggest that lower caste and indig-
enous populations are the worst affected (Chakravorty 2013; Fernandes
2004; Pellissery and Dey Biswas 2012; Singh 2002). Fernandes (2008)
estimated that there were more than 60 million displaced citizens between
1947 and 2000, whereas more conservative estimates put the number at
50 million people, of which 90% of the cases are resulting from the state’s
use of land (Chakravorty 2016).
Detailed sectoral data are available on dams (Singh 2002), on mining
(Fernandes 2004), and on steel plants and dams (Parasuraman 1999) that
show how land acquisitions have often ended with violent protests
(Pellissery and Dey Biswas 2012). Since the dominant valuation theories
are also followed and applied meticulously by the Indian state (see GOI
4 S. DEY BISWAS

2009; World Bank 2017), the Indian bureaucracy, and the Indian judi-
ciary, land acquisition case studies in India may help to develop a theoreti-
cal generalisation (Yin 1984, 21) for further testing and may eventually
indicate practical ways in which valuation of land should be conducted.
Before indicating the methodological choices that I have made, I should
briefly look at how the existing theories of value have shaped the present-­
day valuation practices. It is the existing theories of value and their applica-
tions that have contributed to the development of mysteries of valuation
(as indicated in this chapter and later elaborated in Chaps. 2 and 3).
The dominant economic theories and practices believe that the mone-
tary price adequately reflects the value of goods and services, including
land. The Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP
2016, 10; bold and italics added) explicitly states:

…fair market value is the amount in cash, or in terms reasonably equiva-

lent to cash, for which in all probability the property would have been sold
on the effective date of the appraisal, after a reasonable exposure of time on
the open competitive market, from a willing and reasonably knowledgeable
seller, to a willing and reasonably knowledgeable buyer with neither acting
under any compulsion to buy or sell, giving due consideration to all available
economic uses of the property at the time of appraisal.

The Blue Book, published by The European Group of Valuers’

Associations (TEGoVA 2016, 17; bold and italics added), defines market
value as follows:

The estimated amount for which the asset should exchange on the date of
valuation between a willing buyer and a willing seller in an arm’s length
transaction after proper marketing wherein the parties had each acted
knowledgeably, prudently and without compulsion.

The above definitions equate the value to the monetary price (as marked
in bold letters). This preliminary observation leads us to believe, even
though only 1% of the real estate market has a price and the rest has only
values, that 99% of the real estate values are measured/realised in terms of
price according to major and dominant literature5 (such as Davy 2012). In
addition to their inherent tendencies to equate value with price and more
precisely monetary price, the issues of the willing buyer and seller, the
arm’s length negotiation, open competitive market, and voluntary
 1 MYSTERIES OF VALUATION 5

t­ ransactions (as proposed by Coase 1960; Lincoln Institute 2016) further

make such definitions unusable during the valuation of expropriated land.
There are four methods, mostly used all over the world, to calculate the
value of land and to determine an appropriate compensation (Mahalingam
and Vyas 2011, 96). These are (a) evaluation of the market value of the
land, (b) evaluation of the net value of income derived from the land (used
in Tanzania), (c) determining original land use value determined by the
state (used in China, Chan 2006), and (d) arriving at land values through
negotiation (used in Peru, Singapore, and Japan) (Mahalingam and Vyas
2011). The epistemology of all these techniques is arguably Smith’s para-
dox of value or diamond-water paradox (1766/1896; 1776/1981).
“Smith (1776/1976) inaugurated modern economic theory with a
riddle” (Davy 2012, 90), that is, the paradox of value or the diamond-­
water paradox. The diamond-water paradox uses the example of the dia-
mond as a commodity which commands a very high exchange value but is
of very little use (value) in everyday life, in contrast with the life-giving
value of water (high use value), which has nonetheless very little exchange
value. This is to indicate how demand and supply of a commodity (dia-
mond and water) produces value and value is represented in terms of mon-
etary price. Soon, a forgotten discussion on the diamond-water paradox
drew more attention, where the ‘paradox’ is further elaborated in a similar
context while considering preferences such as “colour, form, variety or
rarity, and imitation” (Smith 1776/1981, vi. x6).
Incidentally, Smith was discussing price and not value, but we see in
subsequent chapters theoretically (see Chaps. 2, 3 and 4), and later
through field study (see Chaps. 5, 6 and 7), how this second discussion
has relevance to both value and price. The existence of the second discus-
sion challenges everything that I thought I knew about the diamond-
water paradox. Smith asked what the circumstances that regulate the price
of commodities are. “The market price of goods is regulated by quite
other circumstances. When a buyer comes to the market, he never asks of
the seller what expenses he has been at in producing them” (1766/1896,
176). The ‘articles’6 of auctions are based on such principles.7 Smith’s
second discussion (1766/1896, 176–177) is as follows:

1st, the demand or need for the commodity. There is no demand for a thing
of little use; it is not a rational object of desire.
2ndly, the abundance or scarcity of the commodity in proportion to the
need of it. If the commodity is scarce, the price is raised, but if the q
­ uantity
6 S. DEY BISWAS

is more than is sufficient to supply the demand, the price falls. Thus it is
that diamonds and other precious stones are dear, while iron, which is
much more useful, is so many times cheaper, though this depends princi-
pally on the last cause, viz:
3rdly, the riches or poverty of those who demand. When there is not enough
produced to serve everybody, the fortune of the bidders is the only regu-
lation of the price. (added bold and italics)

The research assumes that individuals value things (such as land) differ-
ently (Anderson 1993/1995; Davy 2012), and it may or may not be in
line with approved norms of the society. A reading of the development of
the valuation doctrines contributes to understanding how such a discrep-
ancy can be interrogated. I began with the paradox of value by Smith
(1776/1981). I could trace back the roots of the everyday confusion of
equating value with price in Smith’s writings (1766/1896). This gives us
an incentive to look at the historical development of valuation theories to
identify (among many other things) how equating value with price became
the dominant economic theory and practice.
Ricardo was not convinced by Smith’s paradox; he therefore intro-
duced other criteria such as scarcity and the labour needed to obtain com-
modities or the means of production (Ricardo 1821/2001, 8, 16).
Ricardo clearly took the value of labour from the means to live a meaning-
ful life to appropriation of real wealth (for more please see Sect. 2.4.1).
Malthus restricted himself to the use and the exchange value (de Vivo
2012), whereas Marx was convinced that value is determined by labour
time (Marx 1974, 36–8; Hong 2000). Von Thünen proposed that the
value of land depends on the transporting cost of produced (mostly agri-
cultural) commodities to a central business district (1966, 235, 254–256
as quoted in Pullen 2014, 14).
Inspired by Bentham (1781/2000) and Mill (1879/2009), Jevons
(1871/1888) took the Marginal Revolution forward by adding indirect
ways to estimate pleasure and pain. This measurement was considered the
inherent measurement individuals do while determining the value of cer-
tain goods and services. The measurement should include a sufficient
number of independent data, among the rational possible alternatives.
According to Jevons, the process of creation of value depends on the cost
of the product, which determines the supply, the supply determines the
utility, and the final degree of utility determines the value. The final degree
of utility a commodity carries will depend on the price an individual is
 1 MYSTERIES OF VALUATION 7

­ illing to pay (1871/1888, 120). Menger (1871/2007) argued that a

w
pearl is not valuable because we need to employ a great deal of labour and
risk, but that we labour for it because it is valuable.8 He also concluded
that a thing is valuable only if there is a possibility of economising it.
Economising takes place through money and as an intermediate does not
equate to the values of the two or more objects which are being traded.
The exchange value represented through price or ‘outer value’ may actu-
ally vary while negotiating socio-political circumstances. This is an early
acknowledgement of the inflationary effect on money, opening the possi-
bility to look at other ways to compensate, keeping the marginal
value in sight.
Walras claimed that measuring utility is actually estimating utility
(1896/2014, as quoted in Moscati 2013). In the process, abstraction
considers the social transaction to be ruled by factors that are difficult for
the actors to recognise. Walras assumed that there is a value when some-
one wants to buy. During the exchange, when money takes precedence, it
(money) can be manipulated too (1896/2014, 25, as quoted in Moscati
2013). The moral appreciation of value takes a back seat and necessities
dictate the terms. This inadvertently indicates Maslow’s needs hierarchy.
Valuation of things includes use of land to satisfy elements of the needs
hierarchy. Coase argued that in a well-informed society, transaction costs
should come down to zero, even though it is practically ‘very unrealistic’
(Coase 1960, 15). He advised: “It makes little sense for economists to
discuss the process of exchange without specifying the institutional setting
within which the trading takes place, since this affects the incentives to
produce and the costs of transacting” (Coase 1992, 718).
From Smith to Coase, different criteria have been employed to value
things, including but not restricted to land. One of the preferences has
always been the public good and another is reciprocity in transaction. This
reciprocity has also been one of the pillars of the capabilities approach (Sen
2003; Nussbaum 2006). Instead of choosing between means and ends,
the capabilities approach gives equal importance to both. This principle,
when applied to the value of land and subsequent exchange or expropria-
tion, should look at both (means and ends), much like von Wieser
(1889/1893, 16, regarding the value of future wants). When applied to
expropriation of land, the value of land in the future—that is, concerns for
original owners/users’ old age—should be looked at because owning land
is instrumental in realising various human capabilities and hence improv-
ing the quality of life.
8 S. DEY BISWAS

Davy (2012, 25–26, 91) unified grand theories of value and concluded
that all previous theories could not explain the social realities because they
could not recognise that land has plural values. He summarised this plural-
ity as commodity (or exchange value), territory (or territorial value), capa-
bility (or use value) and ecological or existential9 values of land. When
applied to the expropriation of land, neither landowners nor the expro-
priator will receive justice if we ignore the plural values of land. In doing
so, we need to strike a balance between burden and benefit. Davy took a
middle path, like John Stuart Mill, “not too much and not too little”. In
Davy’s work (2012), in the case of a market-based transaction, the state or
any mediator(s) are impartial actors. At the same time, it is better to have
implicit rather than explicit values. While looking for consensus among the
plethora of valuation theories, the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy sug-
gests the value of the land depends on the scarcity of land situated in a
high-demand location. Nevertheless, considerations of political economy
make valuation rather an art, estimation, or projection than a perfect sci-
ence (RICS 2008, 17). With this preliminary theoretical understanding, I
would like to return to a brief discussion on the methodological choices
that have been made for this research.
The choice of method depends on the nature of the problem under
study and its unique circumstances (Flyvbjerg 2006, 229). Karl Popper
(1959/2005) famously used a single appearance of a black swan to dis-
prove the hypothesis that “all swans are white.” There are two ways to
interpret Popper’s experiment; one is called falsification, through which
one theory can be falsified with a single case study. Another way is to
understand certain phenomena as exceptional until we identify what is
causing or contributing to the creation of exceptions to the rules. After
further investigation, the exception might appear to be part of new rules
or laws and not an exception at all (Thornton 2018). Therefore, as
researchers, we should go back to the drawing board and work further on
our theories. In the absence of a clear theory, we might come up with a
precise number calculated from a very large sample size collected for a
decade, but we cannot even ascertain a clear rule, if the particular theory
is not applied to data. If Galileo’s test bothered with wind and worthiness
of place (a fall from a church vs. peasant’s home), or Newton was inter-
ested in formulating his hypothesis,10 we would not have come even close
to understanding gravitation. As a matter of fact, for many centuries, attri-
butes such as weight were considered part of the understanding of how
things fall and the occult notion that all things must fall in their natural
places (for Aristotelian ‘natural places’, see Bodnar 2018).
 1 MYSTERIES OF VALUATION 9

Therefore, a case can be made to exclude other factors in the study as

long as it helps us to understand a phenomenon or establish a relationship
(Bailey 1992). Patton (2002, 169), suggests that a purposive sample “has
a logic and power – and provides rich information”. Therefore, a purpo-
sive selection of cases that represent the known outcome of the certain
process matches the purpose of the study (Stake 1995; Remenyi et al.
1998). However, the quality of the cases has much to do with the effec-
tiveness of the research. Yin (1984) stated that “the case study approach is
appropriate where the phenomenon (land acquisition for industrialisation)
cannot be studied separately from the context (relationship between the
land and dispossessed).”
The following two extreme or deviant cases, which are closely defined
or similar (good or problematic case; Flyvbjerg 2006), are the sources of
empirical data for this study. A violent protest took place in Singur,11 West
Bengal, India, where the Indian multinational conglomerate TATA was
building their car factory on state-acquired land. The resistance from the
landowners was severe and it had defeated a Communist Party-led demo-
cratically elected coalition government in a province of India (West
Bengal). The same government party had pioneered land reform and was
in power for the last 30 years or so. The somewhat less-studied land
acquisition case is located in Salboni,12 West Bengal, India, where a much
larger factory was proposed. The land was acquired, yet no anti-land
acquisition movement has taken place so far. The first case, ‘Singur’, is
considered a failed project and the second one, ‘Salboni’, turned out to
be successful (peaceful). These two cases, over which the researchers have
no control, will help us to enquire into ‘how’ questions in particular (Yin
1984, 20) (Fig. 1.1).
With these observations in mind, the research frames the following
objectives and research questions for study.

1. To understand how final market value is determined.

I ask (research question 1): how do plural values interact with
Smith’s paradox of value to produce a final market value?
2. To measure the potential full compensation by including the plural
values of land.
I ask (research question 2): how do individuals perceive the ideal
‘monetary’ sufficiency or ‘non-monetary’ sufficiency equal to plural
values of land?
10 S. DEY BISWAS

Fig. 1.1 Map: Locations of the case study areas

(I drew the above location map based on Bing Ariel with labels accessible via QGIS
software, shape files downloaded from the freely available sites. Accessed on
January 2018 retrieved from http://data.biogeo.ucdavis.edu/data/diva/adm/
IND_adm.zip)

I explored the actual valuation principles employed in practice by the

participants of the study via the first research question and propose a
framework for full compensation with the help of the second research
question. The earlier research question deals with the ‘interaction’ between
plural values and Smith’s paradox of value. By ‘interaction’ I mean the
mechanism through which the existential or ecological values of land may
or may not be more than the real estate value of land, or land value as a
commodity, or the exchange value of land according to the plural value
theory. Central Park in New York City indicates a situation where the exis-
tential value of the park is more than the exchange value represented in
terms of monetary price. Millions of hectares of forest cleared everywhere
around the world (FAO 2015) gives us an example where the existential
or ecological value of land is less than the exchange value represented in
terms of monetary price.
With the help of empirical evidence, the research will develop a social
policy rubric (Gubrium et al. 2014) by including plural values of land
 1 MYSTERIES OF VALUATION 11

(Davy 2012). This rubric represents a policy framework and a scale to

grade compensation packages by identifying the components of compen-
sation in various fields within the rubric (such as below expectations, needs
improvement, satisfactory, and progressive improvement over time) as
against a one-size-fits-all policy recommendation which does not take into
account the social, economic, and political context of the case of land
acquisition in question. The second research question gives us indications
of the scope and limits of the ideal ‘monetary’ sufficiency or ‘non-­
monetary’ sufficiency commensurate with plural values of land. If I can
understand the scope and limitations, then the rubric will be able to reflect
the social realities and the scope and limits of monetary sufficiency or non-­
monetary sufficiency commensurate to plural values of land and produce a
plural value-based policy rubric.
Semi-structured in-depth interviews have been conducted to produce
‘thick descriptions’ of participants’ general experiences (Geertz 1973)
with land, and descriptions of related land, value, plural values, scarcity,
demand, location, relationship with land, limits of value represented
through price, monetary, and non-monetary means. These issues are dif-
ficult to capture in a survey-type questionnaire, where often yes or no
questions are asked and there is no possibility to explore the reasons
behind each brief (yes/no) answer. In other words, in a survey-type ques-
tionnaire, the ‘why’ and ‘how’ questions are not sufficiently asked,
answered, and followed up. Gill et al. (2008, 292) suggest that the
strength of qualitative research interviews over the quantitative is as follows:

The purpose of the research interview is to explore the views, experiences,

beliefs and/or motivations of individuals on specific matters…Qualitative
methods, such as interviews, are believed to provide a ‘deeper’ understand-
ing of social phenomena than would be obtained from purely quantitative
methods, such as questionnaires.

The semi-structured interview guides were used particularly for partici-

pants’ everyday experiences in relation to land (Rapley 2004). Such flexi-­
guides have disciplined the researcher(s) to focus on pertinent topics for
discussion and at the same time give room to ask appropriate follow-up
questions with the emerging issues raised by the participants.
I have engaged with participants via (a) in-depth (one- to two-hour)
one-on-one interviews with 15 individuals subject to expropriation of land
as well as (b) in-depth (one- to two-hour) one-on-one interviews with
12 S. DEY BISWAS

stakeholders (15 from each of the selected cases, Salboni and Singur). The
stakeholders include government officials, local political representatives,
industry representatives, and other individuals involved in the expropria-
tion process or who have first-hand experience with expropriation of land.
The data collected in this segment has, therefore, reflected a total of 60
one-on-one interviews. (c) The research has also organised six focus group
discussions (FGDs) at these case sites. Participants have mostly been drawn
through rapport-building with community resource persons and snowball
sampling from the Upper Caste, Scheduled Caste, and Scheduled Tribe,
while maintaining parity in terms of gender and age group.

1.3   Monorational(s) in Polyrational

The world is seen through different lenses and these lenses encourage us
to describe the world with different words. Some of us even use the same
word to indicate a different phenomenon or meaning.13 Similarly, the
meaning of land is no exception. A civil lawyer’s worldview on land is a
product of his experience with civil disputes that she or he represents at
court (which can often be summarised as a ‘bundle of sticks’).14 A home-
less person understands the meaning of land while being kicked out from
one place to another, and a farmer sees it as a place to grow grains. The
nature of our proximity with the land shapes our worldviews and how we
value the subject. One such group of people can be described as
observers(s); another, however, has a direct relationship with the land.
What do I mean by an observer? When I took a walk by the Oslo Fjord,
in the courtyard of the European Parliament in Brussels, or on the banks
of the Kopai River in Santiniketan, India, I did not influence those condi-
tions. This is what I call a proximal observer. On the other hand, when
there is a direct relationship as an agency, it shapes our understanding of
land and shapes our meaning to land. This direct relationship can be as a
lawyer, as police personnel, or as an interested buyer. Our lifelong experi-
ences influence us and give meaning to the existence of those conditions.
This feeling is not absolute, a second person will not necessarily feel in a
similar way, nor is it certain that a second person will not find this experi-
ence equally significant. Numerous such experiences influence how we
value or do not value certain things in life. Anderson (1993/1995) and
Davy (2012) have shown (among many other things) how polyrational
our world is.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
the Atlantic ocean, 2,000 feet in thickness, were elevated above the
waters, and became dry land.”
We have alluded to the undulating character of the downs, so “well
known,” as Mantell says, that “local details are unnecessary.” How
correct this is may be seen in the following drawing, which
represents a portion of Royston Heath.

All over this heath is found the “Royston crow,” during the winter
months. This fine bird migrates hither from Norway, to avoid its
severe winters, and is scientifically known as the “Hooded-crow,
corvus cornix.” On its first arrival, when it is in its best plumage, it is
comparatively tame, allowing the sportsman to approach very near;
but as the season advances, acquaintance with the gun makes it very
knowing and shy. It associates freely with the other crows, but its
nest has never yet been found in England. About March the hooded-
crow wholly disappears. The head, throat, and wings are black; the
back and breast a “clear smoke-grey.” Norman, the bird-stuffer of
this town, has always several fine specimens on hand.
As, in the case of the Carboniferous system, we ventured to say to
the reader that it was not all coal, so in the Cretaceous system, we
would remind him that it is not all chalk; but without going minutely
into the subdivisions which the chalk formation has received,
because this unpretending elementary treatise does not profess to
teach geology, but simply aims, as we have ventured again and again
to repeat, to infuse into the mind a desire of acquaintance with the
marvels and truths of this science, we will just indicate the leading
divisions and nomenclature of this deposit. First, there is the green
sand; that is, first, beginning at the bottom or lower part of the
formation: this may be well seen and studied in the neighbourhood
of Cambridge, where we have procured many of its characteristic
fossils, including several vertebræ and teeth of the otodus, a fish
allied to the shark family, such as are figured in the opposite
diagram.
 FOSSIL TEETH OF FISHES:

FROM UPPER GREEN SAND,

CAMBRIDGE.

1. OTODUS.
2. CARCHARIAS.
3. CORAX.
4. OXYRHINA.
5. NOTIDANUS.
6. LAMNA.
7. PTYCHODUS.
 FOSSILS FROM THE GAULT,
FOLKSTONE.

1. AMMONITE DENTATUS.
2. AM. LAUTUS.
3. AM. SPLENDENS.
4. AM. CRISTATUS.
5. AM. DENARIUS.
6. CATILLUS SULCATUS.

At Potton and Gamlingay in Bedfordshire, and in the

neighbourhood, this green sand is highly ferruginous, and the roads
and fields present that peculiarly dark-red colour which is first
singular and then wearisome to the eye. In the case of the Potton
beds, the red colour is caused by oxidization or rust of iron; in the
neighbourhood of Cambridge, &c., where there is the green sand,
this is owing to the influence of “chloritous silicate of iron.” Then we
have the galt or gault, a local term of which we cannot trace the
etymology. The gault, however, is not of great thickness, but is likely
to be the most interesting department of the Chalk to the beginner,
on account of the abundance and peculiar appearance of its fossils. A
ramble under the cliffs at Folkstone,[106] where the gault may be seen
in perfection, will amply repay any one for toil, dirt, and a few slips
and bruises. He will there find evidences of a prolific and prodigal
bestowment of life in the innumerable fragments of organic remains
every where observable; and if he be patient,—if he won’t go running
on from spot to spot, saying, as some do, “Oh, there’s nothing here;”
if he will just persevere in a minute examination of every spot where
organic remains may be detected, he will not come away without his
reward in ammonites, hamites, and other cephalopodous mollusks,
and most of them with that peculiar nacreous or mother-of-pearl
lustre upon them which renders the fossils of this period so beautiful
and attractive. Only we caution the explorer not to buy of the so-
called guides. At Dover and Folkstone the rogues have a knack of
getting a lump of gault, and sticking into it one or two common
pyrites, which are very abundant in the cliff, bits of shell, ammonites,
&c.; they then offer this conglomerate for sale, all rounded and
smooth, assuring you upon their “sacred honour,” the honour of men
who always draw upon their imagination for their facts, that they
would not ask so much for it, only on account of its excessive rarity.
As good economists always avoid cheap houses, and go to the best
shops, so let the young geologist always go to the best shop: let him
go to the cliff with his hammer, and work for himself. We picture a
few fossils from the gault, only regretting that it is out of the power of
our artist to convey their lustrous colours, as well as their curious
forms.
1. NATICA CANICULATA.

2.} VENTICRULITES.
3.}

4.} ROSTELLARIA MARGINATA.

5.}

6.}
7.} CATILLUS CRISPI.
8.}
 Then comes, lastly, the Chalk: that is, the white chalk, divided into
lower and upper; the lower being harder and mostly without flints,
and the upper characterised by layers and bands of flint, sometimes
nodular, as in Cambridgeshire, and sometimes flat almost as a
pancake, as in the neighbourhood of Woolwich.
Above are some of the most characteristic fossils of the Chalk. No.
1 is a pecten, or oyster, called the “five-ribbed,” or quinque costatus;
No. 2 is the plagiostoma spinosa, so called on account of its spines, a
shell found frequently in our chalk or lime-pits; No. 3 is the
intermediate hamite (Lat. hamus, a hook), “hamites intermedius;”
No. 4 is the spatangus cor-anguinum, a very common fossil echinus
in the chalk; No. 5 is the ananchytes ovata, found frequently in the
Brighton and Ramsgate cliffs; No. 6 is a scaphite (Gr. skaphē, a skiff
or boat); and the last is our old friend the belemnite, who has
survived so many of this earth’s changes, and now finds himself a
contemporary of the cretaceous inhabitants of the globe.
In many respects, the Chalk presents us with remarkable
anomalies: we have sand, the green sand, but unlike in colour and in
texture the sand of the old and new red sandstone, where we find it
compressed and hardened into solid and compact masses of stone;
we have clay, argillaceous beds such as the gault, but it is not clay
hard and pressed into slaty rocks, but soft and compressible; and we
have carbonate of lime, the chalk constituting the calcareous beds of
this formation; but where we have met with it before it has been hard
and solid limestone, and marble, not pliable and soft as in the
Cretaceous system; and yet apparently it is all the same material as
we have found in the earlier stages of the earth’s crust—the washings,
degradations, and deludations of older and harder rocks, along with
the secretions and remains of organized animals that once peopled
this ancient earth; thus affording us, on a large scale, another
illustration of the economy observable in all the works of God.

FOSSIL FISH FROM LEWES.

Having spoken of the fossil fishes of the Chalk, we here give

drawings of two procured from the neighbourhood of Lewes, the
famous fossil fishing-ground of the late Dr. Mantell; and it is due to
the name and memory of the Chalk historian and geologist, to inform
the reader that Dr. M. was the first who succeeded, by skilful removal
of the surrounding chalk, in procuring a perfect ichthyolite from the
cretaceous formation of England. The British Museum is now
enriched by Dr. Mantell’s collection of fossil fishes, that once so
much excited the admiration of Agassiz, when he saw them at
Brighton.

FOSSIL FISH (ICHTHYOLITE) FROM LEWES.

Here let us again advert to the Deluge theory, not because our own
minds are not satisfied on the point, but because theology and
science alike demand a true statement of the facts of the case. We
believe, as we said in a previous chapter, in the plenary inspiration of
nature, just as we believe that the Scriptures were given by
inspiration of God; and we are quite sure that both books, if they are
not misinterpreted, will declare the glory of God in one common
speech, and elevate the mind of man, to whom they speak, up to a
more adoring trust and a profounder reverence. With Dr. Hitchcock
we say, “It seems to me that the child can easily understand the
geological interpretation of the Bible and its reasons. Why, then,
should it not be taught to children, that they may not be liable to
distrust the whole Bible, when they come to the study of geology? I
rejoice, however, that the fears and prejudices of the pious and the
learned are so fast yielding to evidence; and I anticipate the period,
when on this subject the child will learn the same thing in the
Sabbath school and in the literary institution. Nay, I anticipate the
time as not distant when the high antiquity of the globe will be
regarded as no more opposed to the Bible, than the earth’s revolution
round the sun, and on its axis. Soon shall the horizon, where geology
and revelation meet, be cleared of every cloud, and present only an
unbroken and magnificent circle of truth.”[107] But to return; this
Deluge theory refers all existing fossils to “Noah’s flood,”—to that
violent diluvial action, the graphic account of which is in the book of
Genesis. Now, it is impossible to believe this if we look at a fossil:
look, for instance, at this terebratula, and observe how perfectly
uninjured it is, frail as is its shelly covering; or at this plagiostoma
spinosa, and mark how susceptible it is of injury, and yet that its
brittle spines are all unbroken; or at this inoceramus or catillus, and
observe its delicate flutings, still in exquisite preservation, without
fracture or distortion; or these specimens of echinites, the
ananchytes ovata, or the spatanguscor-anguinum, and see the
markings on the shell, the apertures of the mouth and stomach still
perfect; who can see all this and not come to the conclusion, that
these creatures, and thousands such as these, endured not only no
violence in death, such as a deluge would suppose, but that at death
they subsided quietly to the bottom of the sea, there to find a fitting
sepulchre of soft cretaceous matter prepared for them, which in
process of time was lifted up, to exhibit in a hard chalky bed their
forms of pristine beauty?
In the upper chalk every one has seen the layers of flint, and
marked their singular distribution, in layers; and here we would add,
that the existence of flint in chalk is one of those hard nuts which
geology has not yet cracked. The geologist, the chemist, and the
zoologist have all puzzled themselves in vain to find a truly
satisfactory origin for these nodules of siliceous matter. We have
heard it suggested that they may be coprolites; but no one who
examines the texture of a flint, can hold that theory, to say nothing of
the idea that the coprolites have been preserved, while the animal
remains have perished. We may sum up all we have to say about
flints in the following words, from that useful little book, Chambers’s
“Rudiments of Geology:”
“The formation of flint, within a mass so different in composition
as chalk, is still in some respects an unsolved problem in geology. It
occurs in nodular masses of very irregular forms and variable
magnitude; some of these not exceeding an inch, others more than a
yard in circumference. Although thickly distributed in horizontal
layers, they are never in contact with each other, each nodule being
completely enveloped by the chalk. Externally, they are composed of
a white cherty crust; internally, they are of a grey or black silex, and
often contain cavities lined with chalcedony and crystallized quartz.
When taken from the quarry they are brittle and full of moisture, but
soon dry, and assume their well-known hard and refractory qualities.
Flints, almost without exception, enclose remains of sponges,
alcyonia, echinida, and other marine organisms, the structures of
which are often preserved in the most delicate and beautiful manner.
In some specimens the organism has undergone decomposition, and
the space it occupied either left hollow, or partially filled with some
sparry incrustation. From these facts, it would seem that flints are as
much an aggregation of silex around some organized nucleus, as
septaria are aggregations of clay and carbonate of iron. This is now
the generally received opinion; and when it is remembered that the
organisms must have been deposited when the chalk was in a pulpy
state, there can be little difficulty in conceiving how the silex
dissolved through the mass would, by chemical affinity, attach itself
to the decaying organism. Chalk is composed of carbonate of lime,
with traces of clay, silex, and oxide of iron; flint, on the other hand,
consists of 98 per cent. of pure silex, with a trace of alumine, oxide of
iron, and lime. Silex is quite capable of solution: it occurs in the hot-
springs of Iceland and most thermal waters; has been found in a
pulpy state within basalt; forms the tabasheer found in the cavities
of the bamboo, and the thin pellicle or outer covering of canes, reeds,
grasses, &c.; and siliceous concretions are common in the fruits and
trees of the tropics. All these facts point to a very general diffusion of
silex in a state of solution; and whatever may have caused its
abundance in the waters during the deposition of the upper chalk,
there can be little doubt respecting the mode in which it has been
collected around the organic remains of these early seas.”
At Scratchell’s Bay in the Isle of Wight, it will be seen that the flints
are in a vertical position; and to the most casual observer the
perpendicular arrangement of these flints will supply the strongest
evidence of disturbance by upheaval from below. The bay in front,
called Scratchell’s Bay, is a small but romantic indentation in the
coast of the south side of the island, in which are the famous
Needles. In the face of the cliff is a noble archway between 200 and
300 feet high, which has been created by the constant action of water
eating and wearing away the lower beds; while the Needles
themselves are only isolated masses of chalk, separated or eroded
from the main land by the same erosive action. “To the late Sir Henry
Inglefield belongs the merit of having first observed and directed
attention to the highly interesting phenomena of vertical chalk
strata, occasioned by the disruption and elevation of the eocene and
cretaceous formations, which are so remarkably displayed in the Isle
of Wight, where the vertical position of the strata, and the shattered
condition of the flint nodules, thought still embedded in the solid
chalk, may be conveniently studied in the cliffs in the neighbourhood
of Scratchell’s Bay.”[108]
With the study of the Chalk formation, we close what has been
appropriately termed the “secondary period, or middle epoch of the
ancient world;” of which it has been well said, “In reviewing the
characters of the Cretaceous group, we have evidence that these
varied strata are the mineralized bed of an extensive ocean, which
abounded in the usual forms of marine organic life, as algæ, sponges,
corals, shells, crustacea, fishes, and reptiles. These forms are
specifically distinct from those which are discovered in the tertiary
strata; in many instances, the genus, in all the species, became
extinct with the close of the Cretaceous period. It affords a striking
illustration of creative power, that of the hundreds of species which
composed the Fauna and the Flora of the Cretaceous group, not one
species passed into the succeeding epoch.”[109]
Of that old ocean with its countless tenants we have already
spoken, and conclude by applying to it the well-known lines of
Montgomery, in his celebration of the coral insect in his “Pelican
Island:”—
Millions of millions here, from age to age,
With simplest skill, and toil unweariable,
No moment and no movement unimproved,
Laid line on line, on terrace, terrace spread,
To swell the heightening, brightening gradual mound,
By marvellous structure climbing towards the day.
Omnipotence wrought in them, with them, by them;
Hence what Omnipotence alone could do,
Worms did.
WALTONIAN AND MANTELLIAN FISHERMEN.
 CHAPTER XII.
THE TERTIARY SYSTEM.

“And God made the beast of the earth after his kind.”
Moses.

In our rapid sketch of the materials constituting the crust of the

earth, we first of all, in that imaginary section which we supposed to
have been laid bare to us, studied the characters of the hypogene
rocks,[110] that make up the Azoic period, in which, with the exception
of a few zoophytes, all nature was void of animal, life and possessed
only by the genius of dread silence. Rising higher, we surveyed the
Palæozoic or primary rocks, where the fishes of the Old Red
Sandstone convinced us of progress in the forms of life, and taught
us our first lesson in the ascending scale of those types of life with
which Palæontology has now made us familiar. Leaving this period at
the Carboniferous era, we entered upon the Mesozoic,[111] or
Secondary period, ushered in amidst strange convulsions that must
again and again have rendered the earth “without form and void;”
and here we found ourselves in company with the strange and
gigantic remains of a higher order of vertebrated animals, the
saurians, the crocodile-kings of a bygone period; and as we pondered
these hieroglyphics of past generations, our souls “were seized the
prisoners of amaze;” and now, in our upward ascent, leaving behind
us the scenes
“Where eldest Night
And Chaos, ancestors of nature, held
Eternal anarchy,”

we come to the Cainozoic,[112] or Tertiary Rocks, where other and

higher types of life are found. Huge mammals, beasts of prodigious
size, are now found inhabitants of the earth, the precursors of man—
reasoning, intelligent, responsible man, who is presently to make his
appearance on this great theatre of life, “made a little lower than the
angels,” to have dominion over the works of Jehovah’s power.
Sir H. de la Beche proposes, for tertiary, the term
“supercretaceous;” it is, however, of little consequence which term is
adopted, the meaning in each case being the same, that all the rocks
or strata lying above the chalk are to be considered as belonging to
the tertiary system or series. Confessedly, it is a dark period in the
history of those successive creations which have been engaging our
attention, for we can trace no near connexion between the secondary
or older, and tertiary or newer formations. That is to say—and the
bare statement appears so sufficient and final a refutation of what
has been termed the “development hypothesis,” now recognised as
contradictory to fact and to Scripture—that there are not known to
exist in any of these newer strata the same beings, or the descendants
of the same beings, that were found upon the earth at the
termination of the chalk deposit.
Nor is this all; not only are none of the old fossils found in any one
of the three divisions of this system, but we are introduced at once to
so many new ones, that their species and genera are almost endless;
and he is not only a geologist of mark, but a most singularly
accomplished geologist, who thoroughly understands their minute
subdivisions, and can appropriately classify the fossils of this most
fossiliferous era. To make the matter as simple as possible, let us add
that “the broad distinction between tertiary and secondary rocks is a
palæontological one. None of the secondary rocks contain any fossil
animals or plants of the same species as any of those living at the
present day. Every one of the tertiary groups do contain some fossil
animals or plants of the same species as those now living.”[113]
Having alluded to the threefold division of this series of rocks, we
shall proceed to notice them, dwelling a while upon each, and
showing the principle on which each is based, as originated and
enunciated by Lyell. Of the three divisions, the first is called Eocene
(ēōs, the dawn, and kainŏs, recent), by which term is represented the
oldest or lowest of this tripartite series. Then we have the Miocene
(meiōn, less, and kainŏs, recent)—a name, we think, not the most
appropriate, and likely to mislead the beginner, because really it
represents a series of beds, more and not less recent than the
Eocene; but the idea of the name is this (and it must be carefully
borne in mind), that although it is more recent than the series of
beds below, it is less recent than those above; it is nearer the “dawn”
of our present era than the Eocene, but not so near the dawn as the
Pliocene. This last term, the Pliocene (from pleiōn, more, and kainŏs,
recent), is applied to the newest of the beds of the tertiary series in
which there are found many more recent than extinct shells. The
Tertiary system or series, then, is divided into these three sections:
viz. 1. The older Tertiary or Eocene; 2. The middle Tertiary or
Miocene; and 3. The newer Tertiary or Pliocene.
We used a term just now, in quoting from Mr. Juke’s most useful
manual, which we will explain; we said, the “distinction between the
secondary and tertiary rocks is wholly a palæontological one;” that
is, it is a distinction founded not on the character of the rocks, but on
the character of the organic remains found in the rocks. “This
character,” says Sir Charles Lyell, “must be used as a criterion of the
age of a formation, or of the contemporaneous origin of two deposits
in different places, under very much the same restrictions as the test
of mineral composition.
“First, the same fossils may be traced over wide regions, if we
examine strata in the direction of their planes, although by no means
for indefinite distances.
“Secondly, while the same fossils prevail in a particular set of
strata for hundreds of miles in a horizontal direction, we seldom
meet with the same remains for many fathoms, and very rarely for
several hundred yards, in a vertical line, or a line transverse to the
strata. This fact has now been verified in almost all parts of the globe,
and has led to a conviction, that at successive periods of the past, the
same area of land and water has been inhabited by species of animals
and plants even more distinct than those which now people the
antipodes, or which now coexist in the Arctic, temperate, and
tropical zones. It appears that, from the remotest periods, there has
been ever a coming in of new organic forms, and an extinction of
those which pre-existed on the earth, some species having endured
for a longer, others for a shorter time; while none have ever
reappeared after once dying out. The law which has governed the
creation and extinction of species seems to be expressed in the verse
of the poet—
‘Nature made him, and then broke the die;’

and this circumstance it is which confers on fossils their highest

value as chronological tests, giving to each of them, in the eyes of the
geologist, that authority which belongs to contemporary medals in
history. The same cannot be said of each peculiar variety of rock; for
some of these, as red-marl and red sandstone for example, may occur
at once upon the top, bottom, and middle of the entire sedimentary
series; exhibiting in each position so perfect an identity of mineral
aspect, as to be undistinguishable. Such exact repetitions, however,
of the same mixtures of sediment, have not often been produced, at
distant periods, in precisely the same parts of the globe; and even
where this has happened, we are seldom in any danger of
confounding together the monuments of remote eras, when we have
studied their imbedded fossils and relative position.”[114]
Let us now briefly explain the very simple but satisfactory basis on
which this threefold division of the Tertiary rocks rests, and then
proceed to a brief explanation of each. The reader will already have
noted a statement on a preceding page, to which we shall be
pardoned, if, a second time, we ask attention to it. In imparting
elementary instruction on geology we have always found our classes
more or less puzzled by the tertiary system, on account of its
nomenclature and minute subdivisions, and we have learnt from
experience the importance of presenting this statement over and
over again. We have remarked that in the secondary rocks—that is,
up to the end of the chalk system—there are no organic remains
found precisely similar to any species existing at the present day; but
when we come to the tertiary rocks, although we find many
strangers, we find also a good many organic remains of the same
kind and character as the shells, that are now found on our shores. In
one part of the Tertiary the number of fossils that belongs to existing
genera is many, in another more, in another more still; and upon this
simple idea of positive, comparative, and superlative, the present
division is based. Taking the percentage principle as a guide, Sir
Charles Lyell and a distinguished French geologist, M. Deshayes,
have ascertained that in the lowest beds of this system there were
only 3½ per cent. of fossil shells similar to existing species, and this,
for “the sake of clearness and brevity,” says Sir Charles, “was called
the Eocene period, or the period of the dawn, the dawn of our
modern era so far as its testaceous fauna are concerned.” Rising
higher in the examination of these rocks, certain strata were found
containing 18 per cent. of fossil shells, similar to shells found now;
and to this was given the name of Miocene, the puzzling name
already spoken of, because it means less recent, whereas it is in
reality more recent, and is to be understood in relation to the series
below, and not to the series above. A step higher up in this system
revealed deposits of a coralline and craggy character, in which 41 per
cent. of fossil shells like those of the present era were found; and to
this the name of Pliocene, or more recent still, was given; and
latterly, in Sicily chiefly, a series of strata has been discovered,
referable to the Tertiary, in which 95 per cent. of recent species of
shells have been found, and to this series the name of Post-Pliocene,
or Pleistocene, has been given. Before our description of each of
these divisions, let us add, that “the organic remains of the system
constitute its most important and interesting feature. The fossils of
earlier periods presented little analogy, often no resemblance, to
existing plants and animals; here, however, the similitude is
frequently so complete, that the naturalist can scarcely point out a
distinction between them and living races. Geology thus unfolds a
beautiful gradation of being, from the corals, molluscs, and simple
crustacea of the grauwacke—the enamelled fishes, crinoidea, and
cryptogamic plants of the lower secondary—the chambered shells,
sauroid reptiles, and marsupial mammalia of the upper secondary—
up to the true dicotyledonous trees, birds, and gigantic quadrupeds
of the tertiary epoch. The student must not, however, suppose that
the fossils of this era bring him up to the present point of organic
nature, for thousands of species which then lived and flourished
became in their turn extinct, and were succeeded by others long
before man was placed on the earth as the head of animated
existence. Of Plants, few marine species have been detected; but the
fresh-water beds have yielded cycadeæ, coniferae, palms, willows,
elms, and other species, exhibiting the true dicotyledonous structure.
Nuts allied to those of the cocoa and other palms have been
discovered in the London clay; and seeds of the fresh-water
characeæ, or stoneworts, known by the name of gyrgonites (Gr.,
gyros, curved, and gonos, seed), are common in the same deposit. Of
the Radiata, Articulata, and Mollusca, so many belong to existing
genera, that this circumstance has suggested the classification of
tertiary rocks according to the number of recent species which they
contain.”—Chambers’ Outlines, p. 147.
Let us now begin the Eocene period. The most remarkable
formations of this period are the London and Hampshire basins. Of
the London basin we have already spoken in a previous chapter; a
few additional remarks will be sufficient. The diagrams 4 and 5, p.
25, will explain these tertiary deposits better than any verbal
explanation; and when it is remembered that this bed of clay is
probably a thousand feet in thickness, we get a passing illustration of
the folly of those puerile reports which a few years since were
industriously circulated about a coming earthquake in London. Poor,
uneducated people took up the alarm rather anxiously, never
dreaming of what any tyro in science would have told them—that
supposing there was a subterranean chimney on fire down below,
there was a wet blanket under their feet composed of a thousand feet
of sodden and solid clay, a blanket of the material they may see in the
deep cuttings of the Great Northern Railway in and about London,
that would most effectually have put out any fire, or checked the
progress of any earthquake, just as a cannon-ball is stopped dead by
a woolsack.
A run down the river Thames will take any one who has a day to
spare to the isle of Sheppey, where he will be amply rewarded by
seeing, on the north side of the island, an exposure of this formation
in the cliff laid bare to the height of 200 feet, and which pleasure trip
will be amply rewarded by the discovery in situ of the fossil tropical
plants, &c., that once flourished in the neighbourhood of our cold
and foggy London. “At the entrance of the Thames, the London clay
extends on both sides of the river, and is admirably exhibited in the
isle of Sheppey, which consists entirely of this stratum. The cliffs on
the north side of the island are upwards of 200 feet high, and are cut
down vertically by the action of the sea; they have long been
celebrated for the remarkable abundance and variety of the organic
remains obtained from them, amongst which, perhaps, the most
interesting are the fruits, berries, and woody seed-vessels of several
hundred species of plants. From the same locality there have also
been obtained the remains of upwards of fifty species of fish, and a
considerable number of crustaceans, and many other invertebrata;
besides some remarkable bones which have been described by
Professor Owen, and which indicate the former existence in this
island of large serpents, and of such birds as prey upon small reptiles
and mammalia. Many of these fossils, especially those of plants, are
very difficult to preserve, owing to the great tendency of the iron
pyrites, which enter largely into their composition, to effloresce and
be destroyed by exposure to the atmosphere.”[115]
Passing from the London basin to the Hampshire basin or Barton
beds, we shall first give a group of the shells found here; and we wish
our readers could look at them as they lie before us in their condition
of most exquisite preservation, so exquisite, that those who have
seen them have involuntarily and frequently exclaimed, “But these
can’t be fossils!” I know of no picture-painting of past history so
touching, and yet so true, as these lovely specimens of the shells of
the pre-Adamite condition of England in all their native simplicity.
To those who see in them shells, and only shells, why, in the name of
the prophet, give them figs, while we again remember Wordsworth’s
hero,—
“A primrose on the river brim,
A yellow primrose was to him,
And it was nothing more.”

To us they speak a wondrous story, replete with the knowledge that

maketh glad the heart of man, because it is purifying, elevating
knowledge; and though it does not teach the peculiar truths of
theology, and we heartily wish that geology had been allowed to tell
only its own tale of Creation—for here, as elsewhere,
“Nature, when unadorned,
Is then adorned the most”—

instead of being put to the rack, and made to suggest the special
truths of Revelation,[116] with which it has nothing to do;—although,
we say, it does not teach the peculiar and special truths for which a
Revelation was needed, it everywhere throws light on the boundless
treasures of wisdom and care and beneficent Providence of the God