LOK SABHA

___

SYNOPSIS OF DEBATES

(Proceedings other than Questions & Answers)

______

Monday, March 9, 2015 / Phalguna 18, 1936 (Saka)

______

SUBMISSION BY MEMBERS

Re: Reported release of an alleged separatist Leader by Jammu &

Kashmir Government.

THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS (SHRI RAJNATH SINGH)

responding to the issue raised by several hon. Members, said: Several hon.

Members of the House have expressed their concern about the release of one of the

separatist leader of the Kashmir Valley whose name is Masrat Alam Bhatt. As

soon as we got the information of his release we asked for a complete report from

the State Home Department of Jammu and Kashmir. We have received the report.

However, I would like to assure this House on my own behalf and on behalf of the

Government that our Government is not going to compromise on the issue of

public safety and security under any circumstances. I consider it my responsibility

to bring it to the cognizance of the august House the report which we have received

from the State Home Department of the Jammu and Kashmir. This man Masrat

Alam Bhatt had played a very prominent role in one of the very violent protest

which took place in the Kashmir Valley in 2010. There are 27 criminal cases

against this person named Masrat Alam Bhatt which have been pending against

since 1995. These cases include - attempt to murder, conspiracy, and sedition.

The information which we have got from the State Home Department of the

Jammu and Kashmir reveals that he has got bail in respect of all the 27 cases. This

is what I have been apprised of by the State Home Department of Jammu and

Kashmir. Masrat Alam was detained in February, 2010 under the section 8 of the

Public Safety Act, 1978 and he has been detained eight times since February, 2010.

Under the section 81(1)(B) of the Public Safety Act, the people considered

dangerous against the security of the country can be initially detained for a period

of six months and incrementally this duration can be increased upto two years.

The maximum stipulated period ranges upto two years. The High Court is of the

opinion that no person can be detained for more than two years on a single ground.

If he is to be further detained then fresh ground and fresh charges are required for

that purpose. This is what the opinion of the High Court is. However, I would like

to say that we are not completely satisfied with the report of the Home Department

of the State. That is why, we have sought certain clarification from them and I will

once again share the information as per directions of hon'ble Speaker, once we get

the clarification sought.

THE PRIME MINISTER (SHRI NARENDRA MODI) also said: I

associate myself with the anguish express by the House and the country. This

country never had, nor will ever think on party lines as far as the question of

separatism and terrorism is concerned. The House should unanimously express its

anguish as of today on such an incidence and I would like to assure this House and

the country that whatever activities have been taken place upto the formation of the

Government they have neither been done in consultation with nor have they been

done making the Government of India privy to the information. Therefore, I would

like to urge upon the Members that though they are free to make political

comments on opportune times, it would be better to be mindful of the fact lest we

are sending such a message to the outside world, country and to Kashmir as well

about the unity of the country. Therefore, I would like to assure this House and the

entire country that this Government does not accept any such activity and we are

not in favour of any breech of the unity and integrity of the country. I assure the

House that the steps are and will be taken keeping in view the dignity of the

Constitution. We have sought clarification about certain matters and as the hon.

Minister of Home Affairs has told that the House will be apprised of the

information once the clarification is received. Therefore, once again, I would like

to say that this anguish is not limited to a party alone, this is anguish of the whole

country. This anguish is also not to be categorized as the one belonging to a

particular bench but it encompass whole of the House. We express our unanimous

anguish against the separatist, pro-separatist forces and those violating the law of

the land. This Government will take all the required steps in future to show its

commitment for the unity and the integrity of the country.

*MATTERS UNDER RULE 377

(i) COL. SONARAM CHOUDHARY laid a statement regarding need to

amend the guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana to facilitate

construction of roads in all habitations in desert areas of Barmer

Parliamentary Constituency, Rajasthan.

(ii) SHRI BAHADUR SINGH KOLI laid a statement regarding need to

provide grants to co-operative Land Development Bank, Rajasthan to

enable them to disburse long-term agriculture loans on low interest rates.

(iii) DR. NEPAL SINGH laid a statement regarding need to address the

problems of frequent power failure and damage of transformers in

Rampur district, Uttar Pradesh.

(iv) SHRI NANA PATOLE laid a statement regarding need to include

people belonging to Gowari, Mana, Halba, Dhangar, Injvar community

of Maharashtra in the list of Scheduled Tribes.

* Laid on the Table as directed by the Chair.

(v) SHRI BHARAT SINGH laid a statement regarding need to take steps to

facilitate smooth operation of post offices in Ballia Parliamentary

Constituency, Uttar Pradesh.

(vi) DR. SANJAY JAISWAL laid a statement regarding need to take

effective measures to significantly reduce child mortality rate in the

country.

(vii) DR. MANOJ RAJORIA laid a statement regarding need to provide

special financial provision for construction of buildings for Panchayati

Raj Institutions in Karauli district, Rajasthan.

(viii) DR. KIRIT SOMAIYA laid a statement regarding need to set up a

petrol pump between Sion and Mulund on Eastern Highway in Mumbai,

Maharashtra.

(ix) SHRI KODIKUNNIL SURESH laid a statement regarding need to

provide adequate financial support and fill up vacant posts in the Sree

Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology,

Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala.

(x) SHRI ANTO ANTONY laid a statement regarding need to extend the

time-limit for linking Aadhaar number with bank account for availing

LPG subsidy.

(xi) SHRI R. GOPALAKRISHNAN laid a statement regarding need to

expedite operation of cargo services and upgrade the Madurai Airport,

Tamil Nadu.

(xii) SHRIMATI PRATIMA MONDAL laid a statement regarding need to

desilt Matla river-bed in South 24 Paraganas districts of West Bengal.

(xiii) SHRI BAIJAYANT JAY PANDA laid a statement regarding need to

ensure plain packing of tobacco products.

(xiv) SHRI RAHUL SHEWALE laid a statement regarding need to provide

compensation to the families of employees of Bhabha Atomic Research

Centre, Mumbai who died due to cancer or are living with cancer caused

by hazardous atomic radiation.

(xv) SHRI JAYADEV GALLA laid a statement regarding need to include

Amaravathi city in Guntur district, Andhra Pradesh in Heritage City

Development and Augmentation Yojana.

(xvi) PROF. A.S.R. NAIK laid a statement regarding need to ensure proper

utilization of funds meant for the welfare of Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes.

(xvii) SHRI P.K. BIJU laid a statement regarding need to provide better health

care facilities and implement the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional

(xviii) SHRIMATI KOTHAPALLI GEETHA laid a statement regarding

need to provide adequate infrastructure facilities in Gurukul schools in

Araku Parliamentary Constituency, Andhra Pradesh.

STATUTORY RESOLUTION

Re: Disapproval of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land

Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) Ordinance, 2014

(No. 9 of 2014)

And

THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN

LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT

(AMENDMENT) BILL,2015

THE MINISTR OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, MINISTER OF

PANCHAYATI RAJ AND MINISTR OF DRINKING WATER AND

SANITATION (SHRI CHAUDHARY BIRENDER SINGH) moved that the

Bill further to amend the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land

Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 be taken into

consideration.

SHRI C.N. JAYADEVAN initiating said: Government has promulgated an

Ordinance in order to relax the requirements of consent and social impact

assessment (SIA) survey for projects including industrial corridors, social

infrastructure projects. If the amendments were in favour of the poor they should

have brought it as a Bill in Parliament and got it passed unanimously. It has

knocked off infrastructure projects from SIA and consent provisions. In Ordinance

private entity has such a wide definition that all sorts of private organizations and

even individuals can be covered. According to section 3 of the Ordinance, the

Government can acquire land for private hospitals and private educational

institutions bringing them within the ambit of " public purpose" in order to ensure

better health and educational facilities in the country. However, these hospitals

never provided free medical care to any citizen. The same fate will be there about

the private educational institutions also who would be allotted land free of cost.

The decision to do away with the social impact assessment for the projects is likely

to create further ambiguity on the issue of rehabilitation and resettlement. The

assessment was to be carried out by an independent party, not the district

administration or the project developer. With regard to amendment to section 101

of the principal Act, the period for keeping the acquired land for projects lying

unutilized has been changed. The "specified period" can be kept more than five

years and can also be extended. It is a bitter fact that the Government in

collaboration with the corporate and the builder mafia has been procuring land

much in excess than the actual requirement. The latest CAG Report on special

economic zones says that the land which is acquired is not even used for industries

and lies vacant for many years. If the acquired land is not used for industry where

is the promised employment to the displaced families? The provisions of the

Ordinance show that the Government is out to weaken the Land Acquisition Act,

2013 with a clear intention of making it pro-corporate and anti-farmers. So, I,

disapprove Ordinance and urge upon the government to withdraw this Ordinance

and the Bill.

SHRI KIRTI AZAD: This Bill is important for various reasons. This Bill

has been brought for protective purposes like infrastructure, national security,

railways, education and hospitals etc. Today, farmers are selling their lands at

throw away prices. Eighty percent farmers are having small holdings resulting in

higher cost of agriculture and low income. I propose to launch many central

schemes to my constituency concerning tourism, planetorium, energy and power.

Electricity problem is still prevailing in my constituency because ten acre of land

required for this purpose was not provided by the State Government. There is non-

availability of land for setting up of APHCs and PHCs. I would like to submit that

if corridors, hospitals, schools are built and railways is provided more land, then

the prices of adjoining land would increase significantly. When this infrastructure

is going to be developed, then 70 per cent of our population which are under 35

year of age group would get employment. India is a country having a largest

number of youth in the whole world. Security of our country is a big challenge.

Work pertaining to a railway line passing through my parliamentary constituency

is pending because land has not been provided for that purpose. In the process of

resettlement and rehabilitation, land of people will be acquired only after they are

paid the full amount of compensation. State government will have discretion to

decide which land they would acquire. If farmers are taught any technology and

there is a participation of farmers in it then there is nothing wrong in it. Non-profit

organisations and non-government organisations would endeavour to understand

the local topography and they will be able to mitigate the local problems. States

have been accorded the right to incorporate or not to incorporate the Bill. I hope

every state would adopt this Bill and this august House will pass this Land

Acquisition Bill unanimously.

SHRI JYOTIRADITYA M. SCINDIA: I, at the outset of Debate, would

like to ask whether the Government considers agriculture produce important. If the

answer to this question is 'yes' then we will have to understand the structure of this

country, the needs of the country and have to hear the voices and complaints of the

farmers. Today, 65 per cent population get employment in agriculture and only 35

per cent is engaged in manufacturing and service sector. Will the scale of justice

going to tilt in favour of one party? If this happens, then food security will be

called in question. If agriculture would have been important then the Government

should have not brought in such a Bill in the Parliament. Many reasons like

security of the country, better compensation to farmers and to plug in small

loopholes were cited in favour of this Bill. But this Bill does not endorse all these

pleas. Before moving this Bill in 2013, we discussed it for more than two years

and consulted 14 political parties. At that time Shrimati Sushma Swaraj proposed

2 amendments and these amendments were corporated in that Bill. We brought

changes in 1894 Act because there was no provision for rehabilitation and

resettlement, for giving compensation and to appeal against forcible land

acquisition. The salient features of the Land Acquisition Bill brought by Congress-

led UPA Government in 2013 were transparency in process, two times

compensation in urban areas and four times in rural areas of prevalent market rate,

consent clause for acquisition, restriction on multi-crops fertile land, to keep

acquisition limited to need and to return the land to farmers in case it remains

unutilized for 5 years. But the Government on the pretext of small modifications

has killed the soul of the Act and trying to implement old draconian Act of 1894.

It is said that the Act passed by UPA Government is progress-retarding. If the

House pass the Bill, the farmers of the country will lose all their hopes. Main

points of this Amendment Bill are to give total immunity for 5 projects under

Section 2 and 3, removal of restriction on acquisition of multi-crops land and

consent clause. At that time Shri Vinay Katiyar and Shrimati Jaishreeben Patel

pleaded hundred per cent consent in place of consent of 80 farmers. Social impact

assessment put check on excess land acquisition and to use land for purposes other

than those for which land was acquired. Main focus of social impact assessment is

to see whether the land acquisition is in public interest or not, the number of

families going to be affected and the arrangements made for their livelihood and to

do minimum land acquisition. It was argued that the local MLAs, representatives

of Panchayat and civil organization should be included in social impact assessment

and to publish its report in 6 months. At that time Shri Rajnath Singh ji advocated

mandatory social impact assessment and environmental impact assessment for all

type of land acquisitions. The Government has changed the Clause of returning

land after 5 years to 5 years or the date for establishing any projects whichever is

later. The land is a limited resource and if land, more than requirement, is acquired

then excess land should be returned to the farmers. There is no provision for

providing employment training for youths under the Bill. The Act of 2013 passed

by UPA Government was meant for farmers and Sarvhara Verga. But the

amendment bill brought by the present Government is for corporate sector. During

the election 50 per cent increase in MSP was promised, but the Government in its

affidavit filed in Supreme Court on 21 February stated that it is impossible. The

Bill is being opposed all over the country. If the land of Scheduled Tribes is

acquired, it will revive the wave of naxalism in the country. The Bill is being

opposed by Sangh Parivar, Bharat Kisan Sangh, many organizations and parties

like Shiv Sena, SAD etc. The provisions are not discussed with farmers

organizations. I clearly submit that as far as the issue of national food security is

concerned, the Congress party has always acted as custodian of farmers interest.

The symbol 'Lion' of Make-in-India campaign is going to do more harm farmers. I

humbly request to all my colleagues present here to vote on their inner voice as it

will mark a deep impression not on our heart but on future generation also.

SHRI K.N. RAMACHANDRAN: The provisions of the Bill call for a re-

look by this Government. This Amendment Bill does not come in the way of the

prerogative of the State Government to decide whether any project for which lands

are acquired by the Government, falls under the five prescribed categories. Such

acquisition of lands should be given exemption from the requirements of SIA, that

is , Social Impact Analysis, and 'consent' provision, which is important, on a case

to case basis. But still clause 3 of this Amendment Bill is a cause of concern for us

who believe in upholding the welfare of the Public Sector Undertakings and the

welfare of the people whose lands are acquired really for public purpose.

Globalization and liberalization need not always mean privatization. The

Government of Tamil Nadu is committed to protect the interest of the Public

Sector Units and their employees and also the natural resources that are our

national assets. Government apparatus must not be put in use to acquire lands to

be handed over to the private sector. We have strong reservations about govts.

move to include private hospitals and private educational institutions for the

purposes of becoming eligible for getting the acquired land. We have so many

experiences in the previous Government. The previous Government in Tamil

Nadu was reportedly facilitating this. We want to come clear on it. I want to

believe in this Government that they want to enhance the pace of industrial growth.

We must ask ourselves whether there can be fair compensation if we do not arrive

at a consensus. This Government intends to expedite the process of land

acquisition for strategic and development activities such as national security and

defence of India including preparation for defence production. This Government

also wants to strengthen rural infrastructure including electrification and going for

affordable housing for poor. We have no reservation about that. There is also

something called 'consent'. We must weigh this also. Our State Government is in

the process of finalizing the rules for implementing the Principal Act of 2013. We

must be careful about forced acquisition. We need to ensure safeguards and appeal

mechanism. We cannot afford to be silent on resettlement and rehabilitation of

those displaced.

SHRI KALYAN BANERJEE: We opposed this Bill on a point when 2013

Bill came with 80 per cent consent. Today also, we are opposing this Bill 100 per

cent. In 2007, when nobody had raised his voice on behalf of the farmers, when

land of farmers was acquired at Singur for the Tata project, our leader went on

fasting for 26 days at Dharmtala for protecting the interest of the farmers. We

have a long history of struggle for the rights of the farmers. Today also, we are

protesting against the provisions of this Bill. Today, by way of this amendment,

the honour of the farmers of this country are being taken away. We objected to 80

per cent purchase and 20 per cent acquisition. This Bill says that the provisions of

Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 will not apply to certain projects. Why should it not apply

to them? By this amendment, the right of hearing of a farmer is being taken away.

Land is right of a property of a person and that right of a property of a person is

being taken away without any hearing. It is unfortunate. We have to think about

it. By this Bill itself, the Government is taking away the right of that Scheduled

Caste and Scheduled Tribe in respect of their land. There was an important

provision in the statue, which is being tried to be diluted by this Bill. We have

been fighting on the issue of food security. Why should you take multi-crop

irrigated land? Wherever a multi-crop irrigated land is acquired under sub-section

(2), an equivalent area of cultivable wasteland should be developed for agricultural

use. Our leader repeatedly wrote to the then Government on how the rights of

farmers have to be protected even in case of compulsory acquisition of land by the

Government for discharging its sovereign functions. The farmers should be given

their right, which is really a right of natural justice. For the purpose of

determination of fair compensation, Chapters II and III are needed. In Chapters II

and III, the basic formula of determination of fair compensation has been fixed.

This amendment is nothing. The basic structure is being changed. This

Government is pro corporate. This Bill is an attempt to suck the blood of the

farmers of this country. The Government is having a social responsibility. The

Government is not for the purpose of only making profit. The Government has to

think of the poor people at large. The Government has to first give the priority to

the farmers who are the backbone of our country itself. Tomorrow when this Bill

will come for voting, everyone should oppose this Bill tooth and nail and tell the

people that this Government is the Government for the corporate. This

Government will sell the country to the industrialists.

SHRI TATHAGATA SATPATHY: This ordinance that is being sought to

be made a law is obviously regressive and definitely detrimental to the interest of

the common men holding small tracts of land in the rural India. When the word

development is uttered I always wonder development for whom? That is the basic

question that troubles my mind. We have seen in our State that many projects have

been dumped on us. If a State Government and a Chief Minister is really anti

people it would not have taken nine and half a years for just land acquisition. That

is why for 20 long years he has been in power in a democratic country like India.

Everything depends on land in rural India. There is nothing that you can separate

from land. The whole life exists on that. But what about the poor villagers whose

sources of income are extremely limited and he has nothing but land? Panchayats

must be consulted before acquiring land. Land losers and Panchayats must be

made shareholders in the company or economic or commercial activities that

would follow on that land. Cultivable land is being diverted for non-agricultural

purpose all across the world especially in India. The United Nations says that

within 50 years with the present rate of population increase, additional 300 million

acres of land will be required to feed the population of the world. In India,

between 2007 and 2011, 7,19,000 hectares of cultivable land had been diverted for

other purposes. They have not clearly mentioned what will be the width of the

industrial corridor. Defining public purpose is also very important. We wish to

differentiate between the requirement of land for small projects and requirement of

land for large projects. Production of energy and such other activities are

completely profit making ventures. Land acquired for such profit-making ventures

should have a profit sharing clause built into them. Whether affordable housing is

for the urban or rural poor? Irrigated land or land with potential for being irrigated

must never be acquired. Land for industrial purposes must be standardized as is

internationally accepted. We strongly oppose the elimination of the social impact

assessment clause. That is a very important thing. If you enact this law you will

break the backbone of that section of the society which will have nowhere to go

because they are not land losers yet they were dependent on people who were land

owners. By pushing this Ordinance into a law of this land you are doing

unthinkable damage to the people of India. Therefore, I beseech upon you, do not

err and do not become blind in your support for the super rich. Think of the

persons who voted for the government. But, here the Government speaks against

the Congress but takes a couple of steps, not one step, beyond them to appease the

super-rich. Do not do it. I repeat, withdraw, withhold and re-think.

SHRI ARVIND SAWANT: In Maharashtra more than five thousand

farmers committed suicide last year. We say our farmers should prosper but on the

other hand we are going to acquire the lands of the farmers. We will not allow this

law which tramples upon the rights of the farmers. Regarding land for defence

purpose we support you completely. However, it would be better if fertile lands

are not acquired. Twenty one thousand families were displaced in Maharashtra's

Koina are yet to be resettled. Irrigation projects are going on for twenty-five years.

The farmers even after losing their lands are yet to get irrigation facilities. The

land of farmers was acquired for Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth. In this case also

they are yet to be resettled. Out of the 490-495 SEZ, seventy percent are lying

closed who got the land in such cases? In Maharashtra 200 acres were acquired for

a project which needed only 22.5 acres. What happened to the rest of the land?

The Government gave it cheaply. Now they have a land bank which will be sold at

market rate. In Pune Bajaj Industries has been shut down and on its land housing

project is being undertaken. Although land use has been changed yet it remains

with them. In case purpose for which land has been acquired changes then the

Government should take back the land. So far, of the rehabilitation projects 75 per

cent are yet to be rehabilitated. This is the reason why farmers fear this Bill.

Lands must not be acquired from the farmers without their consent. There must be

provision for consent of 70-80 per cent farmers. Where would you resettle the

displaced fishermen? Of all the people displaced so far more than 45 per cent are

tribals. There should be a single window remuneration for the farmers.

SHRI JAYADEV GALLA: Land acquisition has to be humane,

participative, informed and transparent. If these principles are followed in letter

and spirit, I do not think there would be any hurdles in acquiring land. Seventy per

cent of our population are in the rural areas of which 30 per cent are dependent on

non-agricultural income; 20 per cent are partially dependent on agricultural

income; and only 20 per cent are primarily dependent on agricultural income.

Government of Andhra Pradesh was able to craft a new Land Pooling Model under

which land parcels are pooled from the owners through a voluntary process with no

immediate cash payments to them. Half of the land, would be used to create

common assets, such as roads and social infrastructure and the other half would be

shared equally between landowners and the Government. Secondly, the

landowners are exempted from payment of stamp duty, registration charges, land

conversion charges and other taxes for the land so developed by them. The State

Government proposes to develop the capital in six zones of 800 acres each and

hand over the developed land share to the land owners in the zone his land was

originally pooled from. We also know how almost every Government becomes

unpopular with large-scale acquisition, but here in the case of Andhra Pradesh, it is

the other way round. Its win-win Land Pooling Model offers a lasting solution to

the land procurement woes of the country.

SHRI B. VINOD KUMAR: The Bill was introduced in this House by the

UPA Government. The present government, which was the principal Opposition

Party then, supported this Bill in toto. I do not know for what reason the present

Government is introducing this Bill! In fact, the Act is not at all in force. All the

Members who have spoken just now, are concerned only with two clauses: the

Social Impact Assessment Clause and the Consent Clause which are supposed to

be removed from the main Act. Through this Bill, the Government is adding

Chapter-IIIA, Section 10A. Through that, they are going to amend the Parent Act.

It contains five categories of projections that are exempted from the provisions of

Chapter-II and Chapter-III in the Parent Act. The As per this Section, land

acquisition can now be carried out for private entities and PPP projects without

requiring any consent whatsoever from the affected persons. They are now

replacing the words " private company" with "private entity." What do they mean

by "private entity?" They want to provide scope for acquisition of land for private

entities. I hope that the Government would come up with some amendments. In

the event the Government wants to get it passed, it should be farmer-friendly.

With regard to the definition of 'company' also, instead of 'Companies Act, 1956',

the Government wants to take the definition of 'Companies Act, 2013', for which I

have no objection. But with regard to Section 24, I would like to say that this

dilutes the retrospective provision of the Act and makes a fewer people eligible for

retrospective compensation. For the last five years because the parent Act was in

both the Houses for more than two years, many acquisition proceedings across the

country were held up. So, the land acquisition affected people were not given

compensation. I would request the Government not to dilute Section 24 of the

parent Act. The Government is now amending Section 101 thereby the unutilized

land can now be held virtually. We have seen massive land scams. Lands were

allotted indiscriminately to many people who have not used those lands till now.

Coming to the rules framed by Telangana, the land acquisition shall not exceed 15

per cent of the net present cultivable area in the State. We are giving 100 per cent

solatium on the compensation amount. The Social Impact Assessment Unit is

already formed in our State. All the district collectors were asked to prepare an

inventory of waste, barren and unutilized lands. Such inventory should be

prepared in all districts. These lands should be first utilised for any projects or

companies. If the Government comes out with the amendments, we are ready to

support the Bill; otherwise we will oppose the Bill.

SHRI JITENDRA CHAUDHURY: My party CPI(M) and I strongly

oppose this Bill because it hurts the interests of the farmers, agriculture, tribals and

the poor. Since independence condition of agriculture and farming community has

been worsening constantly. If they are further attacked in such a scenario, what

will happen to them? The farmers are already not getting their essentials for

farming and now when their land is also snatched from them, what will be their

condition. So I oppose the seven amendments proposed in this Bill. There is a

provision to seek consent of the tribals in the scheduled areas and ADCs but not

from those who are out of such areas. I want to know the percentage of tribals out

of 11 crore in the country who live in the schedule areas. Most of the tribals in

Odisha, Andhra Pradesh, Chattishgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh and

Maharashtra live out of scheduled areas. There is no provision of consent from

them. Tribals are connected to their heritage. If their land is acquired, they will

have no option but to commit suicide. This is against the spirit of Forest Right

Act.

SHRI Y.V. SUBBA REDDY: This Act impacts nearly 65 per cent of the

farming community in our country. The Union Government is only at the proposal

stage. But in my State of Andhra Pradesh, it has already begun in the name of

Capital Region Development Authority - against the wishes of farming

community. We agree that we need large extends of lands for infrastructure and

industry. Nevertheless, we need to balance between development and the interests

of land owners. We request you to reconsider the proposed amendment to the Bill.

Irrigated land is an extremely precious asset that cannot be disturbed. We request

that the Government may exempt multi-cropped irrigated lands from acquisition

under the Bill and also restore the compulsory social impact assessment in respect

of all acquisitions.

SHRIMATI SUPRIYA SULE: Ordinance is, normally, promulgated in

case of emergency but it is learnt that the Government says that this ordinance has

been promulgated on the basis of large scale demand. I expect the Government to

disclose as to from where this demand was coming. There was a mention of social

impact assessment, consent and irrigated land. These are three problems towards

which the Members of the House drew the attention of the Government. MIDC

conducts land acquisition in Maharashtra. A lot of People opposed land

acquisition for industrial corridor. But in Maharashtra, MIDC acquired 3500

hectare land by paying good compensation. It happened due to good work of the

collector concerned. He talked to all concerned, took their consent, paid good

compensation and arranged for skill development mission which this Government

often talks about. There is 'Magarpatta model' in Maharashtra. In this model the

ownership of the land vests with the farmers and they get shareholding in the

development projects. The act we passed, was passed unanimously. Today the

House is divided. Social infrastructure means schools and colleges and hospitals

but today, education and health services have become business models. We will

support them if they give us data-based information about why they want to change

the Bill. I do not see any logical reason based on data as to why they have made

these three changes - social impact assessment, consent and irrigated land. This is

going to have an impact on generations to come. I urge this Government to send

this Bill to the Standing Committee in a time bound programme.

THE MINISTER OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, MINISTER OF

HOUSING AND URBAN POVERTY ALLEVIATION AND MINISTER OF

PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (SHRI M. VENKAIAH NAIDU): We are

discussing the Bill to replace an Ordinance. The criticism is that this Government

is changing the Land Acquisition Act unilaterally. Thirty-two States and Union

Territories made an extensive representation during the meeting called by the then

Minister for Rural Development in June, 2014. That is why, this thinking had

started in the Government. Many of the States said that the current Land

Acquisition Act, passed by the Government, makes development impossible.

There may be some good suggestions and I hope that my Minister of Rural

Development will keep all these things in mind and will also come out with

appropriate amendments from the Government side. Some of the State

Governments stressed that it excludes farmers from the developmental process and

prevents improvement of their lives and also delays compensation. The NDA

Government has brought these amendments after extensive consultations and

taking a measured view of the representation of different stages. The Kerala

Government has also publicly admitted that development is impossible with the

SIA and concerned clause. A letter was written by the then Minister of Commerce,

GOI that this Bill, in its present shape, will have adverse, long-term implications

for manufacturing, industrialization and urbanization in India and will be a key

impediment. It is incumbent on the Government of the day to take care of those

concerns and see to it that those concerns are addressed too. So, it is not a

unilateral decision taken by this Government. Karnataka said: "Social Impact

Study should be compulsory only for large projects." "Obtaining consent from

land owners prior to preliminary notification is a Herculean task. This is the

opinion of Kerala. In the backdrop of these and with our own feedback from

different states, from our side as well as from other sides also, we thought that we

must go for an amendment. For the first time, since the first land law of 1894, 13

Acts which have been most commonly used to acquired land have been included in

the Ordinance. Is it progressive or not? We cannot carry developmental activity

without acquiring land. This is for the general public. Without industry and

without business the country cannot prosper. The apprehension expressed by

certain Members is that one has to go to the State Capital or somewhere else to

submit one's grievances. We can go for a system wherein redressal of grievances

has to be there only in District Headquarters rather than going to State Capital. A

point was made about employment. Another suggestion is that one member of the

family affected should be given a job or an employment opportunity. That also has

to be considered. It is clear that the major beneficiaries of the proposed changes

would clearly be the farmers and the rural people. This Government will not allow

a single Act which will go against the farming community which will go against

the poor, weaker sections, suppressed, depressed and oppressed classes. If there

are shortcomings, it is the collective wisdom of the Parliament to highlight those

mistakes. We are here to make a good law for the sake of the country, good law

for the sake of the people who are not organized. People who are working in

unorganized sector have problems but they should not be misled. Our Prime

Minister on day one said that farmers, women, poor people and youth are his

priority. Further, we are suggesting to create a bank of waste land or barren land

and keep it ready so that as and when requirement of land comes up, this land bank

can be exhaust first and then we go to other land. I suggest to the hon. Minister

that we are a federal country. There was a demand to have a central law. The law

was made. Now the central law is being amended. Give the liberty to States so

that they can have their own law and they can proceed also. We do not want a

nation of incomplete projects. Now, the clamour is going on for panchayat roads

to become zila parishad roads; for zila parishad roads to become State roads; for

State roads to become highways; for State highways to become national highways;

and among national highways, four lanes to become six-lanes and six-lanes to

become eight-lanes. That is the point. Without acquiring some of the land, we

cannot proceed with the development of the country. When we do that, the farmer

who lost his livelihood should be adequately compensated. We feel, after coming

to power, with the mandate we have, there is a need to change certain provisions of

the Act. That is why this humble attempt of changing certain provisions of this

Act is being made in order to make them more pro-poor and pro-farmer. My point

is, this Government after taking all these things into consideration has brought this

legislation. We are here to protect the interests of the farmers. Let us discuss it on

merits and give meaningful suggestions. The Government is open to new ideas

and new suggestions. As far as the Government is concerned with regard to the

suggestion given by one hon. Member of referring this Bill to the Standing

Committee, I can humbly place before the House that the problem is that this

Ordinance has to be converted into a law by April 05, 2015. The House is going to

adjourn on 20th March and then likely to reassembly again. If we do not legislate

in-between, then the Ordinance will become ineffective. This is the practical

difficulty.

SHRI DHARMENDRA YADAV: I strongly oppose this Amendment Bill

on behalf of my party. My first question to the hon. Minister is this that what was

need to promulgate this Ordinance. 65 per cent people in the country depend on

agriculture. It seems that the Government did not care for these people and

promulgate this Ordinance. The Hon. Member made a mention of letters of so

many Chief Ministers of the states. I can say with full responsibility that the Hon.

Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh has not written any such letter for bringing in this

Bill. The Express Highway project from Agra to Lucknow passes from 10

districts. 3064 hectare of lands has so far been acquired from 28,233 farmers with

their full consent. Similarly, thousands of acre of lands has been acquired in Saifai

for constructing medical college, stadium and other institutions. In my

Parliamentary Constituency, Badaun alone one hundred acre land has been

acquired with the consent of farmers for medical college. Farmers have not filed a

single case in court so far because the land was acquired after they gave their

consent for the purpose. I, therefore, appeal to the Government either to withdraw

this Ordinance or refer this Bill to the Standing Committee. If this Bill is not

withdrawn, the condition of the farmer in the country would worsen more. We

would have been happy if one member of the family of farmer whose land

acquired was given government job also. But, there is no such provision in this

Bill. Therefore, this Bill should be withdrawn and the original Bill should continue

to be in force. My request is that this Bill should not be made law at any cost.

** ** ** **

ANOOP MISHRA

Secretary General

**Supplement covering rest of the proceedings is being issued separately.

© 2015 BY LOK SABHA SECRETARIAT

NOTE: It is the verbatim Debates of the Lok Sabha and not the Synopsis that

should be considered authoritative.

English and Hindi versions of Synopsis of Debates are also available at

http://loksabha.nic.in.