RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION

AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND

ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION
AND RESETTLEMENT, ACT 2013
Submitted by Group 2
Faiz Hashim F026
Mallika Bhambrri G012
Gulshan Mishra A039
Ankit Sharma G058
Kunj Shah G057
Akash Harlalka G024
 Evolution of Land Acquisition

First Land Acquisition act was formed in 1894, It had the following drawbacks :
•There was no provision of rehabilitation for the owners
•No reasonable compensation
•No provision for dialogue with the affected people
•Misuse of the “Emergency Clause” in the act
•the state could forcibly acquire private land under a vaguely defined pretext of public purpose

Land Bill 2013: Amendments in the act in 2015:

•A clear description of “public purpose”
The bill exempts five categories from the provision of taking
•Consent and agreement of landowners were necessary for
consent of (70-80%) from farmers. The five categories are: 
acquisition. (Private sector projects - 80%, Private-public
1. Defense, 
partnership projects (PPP) - 70%)
2. rural infrastructure, 
•Fair compensation: For rural areas, 4 times MP and urban 2
3. affordable housing, 
times MP
4. Industrial corridors, 
•If the compensation promised wasn’t given to the owners
5. Infrastructure projects including Public-Private Partnership
within 1 year, the acquisition stands null and void (section
(PPP)
25). 
The Bill allows an exemption for projects in these five
•Provision for rehabilitation for the affected people
categories from requiring Consent and Social Impact
•Multi-crop land could be acquired only under special
Assessment be done to identify those affected and from the
conditions
restrictions on the acquisition of irrigated multi-cropped land
•If the land acquired isn’t utilised within 5 years of
imposed by LARR Act 2013
acquisition, the rights of the land to be returned back to the
owner
 Stake holder issue

Between
Between 60
60 and
and 65
65 million
million people
people are
are estimated
estimated to
to have
have been
been displaced
displaced in
in India
India since
since Independence,
Independence, the
the highest
highest number
number
of
of people
people uprooted
uprooted for
for development
development projects
projects in
in the
the world.
world.

Agriculture’s share in India’s gross domestic product (GDP) The land acquired for the purpose of setting up
is only 13.9%. However it accounts for 50% of national manufacturing facilities and generating jobs were diverted to
employment. Industries which contributes 21.5% to the real estate projects for making a quick buck. Example-
GDP, accounts for a mere 20% of employment. Yamuna expressway and Aero city

The ordinance now has dropped the consent clause. The The number of people left unemployed by setting up of
dropping of the pre-acquisition social impact assessment these projects are unaccounted for as self employment and
requirement means essentially that governments are now other worker are not counted as employed in the
free to acquire land far in excess of what is actually needed. government books

The 2013 act facilitated land acquisition by private
companies, which the 2015 bill has changed to “private
entities." As per its definition, a “private entity" is “an entity
other than a government entity" and includes “a
proprietorship, partnership, company, corporation,
nonprofit organisation, or other entity under any other law.
The compensation is provided only to the landowners.
But there are many others as well who are directly/
indirectly dependent on the land such as workers, small
businesses. NO provision for them is provided.
•For small business owners setting up business again is
a challenge. And with the private acquisition and
industrialist acquiring, they also face problems in the
face of competition
 Consent

After (NDA) swept to power, riding high on its

development-driven agenda, it sought to bring
about immediate reforms in land acquisition
procedures. Without land acquisition, it argued,
the government will find it difficult to execute its
ambitious pet projects, including the “Make in
India" program, and removed the consent of
farmers and landowners and exempted five
categories from previous act.

There are many clauses in the Ordinance which

are not in the farmers favor, Under the new law, if
farmer’s land is acquired, he cannot approach the
court unless the government permits him

The 2015 version also removes restrictions on

acquisition of land for private hospitals and private
educational institutes

Critical Analysis: Government should act as mediator between the Private corporate and the farmers, not take side of
the corporate but it should safeguard the rights of land losers to just compensation and rehabilitation
 Social Impact Assessment – Five category projects were exempted

SIA involves listing of all households and their socio-
economic characteristics including the land owned,
leased in/leased out, age and composition of
population, occupational structure, livelihood pattern,
caste and communities of different background.  It also
lists social and economic infrastructure such as
educational and health facilities, religious institutions,
rail/road connectivity, irrigational facilities, housing
structure and pattern etc.
Advantages of conducting SIA
It creates record of the people both of land owners and
landless and those dependent on agriculture and other
activities which are likely to be affected by land
acquisition.
What is checked under SIA
• The areas that would be most adversely affected by the
project, from environmental and social standpoint
• The quantum of land that is sought for the project and
whether it is more than what is necessary
• In the case of scheduled areas, whether the acquiring
body is able to prove that the land that they wish to
acquire is a demonstrable last resort.
• Whether any public unutilized or waste/barren land can
be used for the project.
• A detailed analysis of the type, structure and location of
the land. In case of an agricultural land, the irrigation
coverage and cropping pattern must be analyzed
• Whether the acquisition would be in accordance with
food security laws or not

Critical Analysis:  In the case of acquisitions for exempted purposes under the 2015 bill, in the absence of a thorough social impact
assessment, how will the state identify livelihood losers who must be compensated along with landowners? Will a blanket prohibition on
the acquisition of multi-cropped irrigated land help or hurt the interests of poor farmers in certain states? What are the real costs of land
acquisition for industry, including the costs of compensation and rehabilitation of land losers, as well as transaction and opportunity
costs, and how do these vary across industrial sector and region?
 Cases and Landmark Judgements
Judgement 1:  Indore Development Authority v.
Manoharlal, supreme court, March 2020
• A 5-judge constitutional bench overturned the judgement of 3-judge
bench of the supreme court postulated in the Pune Municipal
Corporation v. Harakchand Misirmal Solanki (2014)
• In Pune Municipal Corporation, the Court had held that land
acquisition will be void under section 24(2) of the Land Acquisition
Act of 2013, if compensation has not been deposited in the bank
accounts of the land owners or with the court. It was categorically
clarified that money in the government treasury will not be treated as a
payment to a landowner.
• However, the 5-judge bench in Indore Development Authority
overturned the judgement of pune municipal corporation case and
deemed it per incuriam. The bench held that land acquisition
proceedings cannot lapse merely due to a failure to pay compensation to
landowners. It held that a lapse will only occur in 2 situations:
a) if the State also fails to take physical possession of the land.
b) Further, it held that payment does not require the State to
deposit money in a landowner's account - tendering compensation is
sufficient, ie, the amount deposited in government treasury for the
purpose is sufficient to consider that payment has been made to the
landowner.
Judgement 2: Balakrishnan v. UOI,
2006
• In 2006, the Kerala State government proceeded to acquire about
27 acres of agriculture land for extension of a techno park in
South Kerala
• The landowner was not satisfied with the compensation
awarded so he went into negotiation with the concerned party for
award of enhanced compensation; however, to avoid litigation
he agreed to sell the land at the price offered by the state.
• After the compensation was paid, the state revenue department
levied capital gains tax on the amount from the landowner,
reasoning that the transaction was “voluntary sale”, and did not
qualify for exemption under Section 10(37) of the Income-Tax
Act as compulsory acquisition.
• This ruling was challenged by the landowner in the High Court,
however, rejected the appeal. The matter was taken to the
Supreme Court which ruled that the owner “succumbed to
the action taken by the Government” to avoid litigation.
• In light of that, the transaction was not a “voluntary sale” but
“compulsory acquisition” and hence, it should be exempted
from capital gains tax.
THANK YOU