The Land Acquisition Bill, 1998

The States of the world have been Texercising their sovereign power to compulsorily acquire lands of private persons within particular legal frameworks. In India, the doctrine of "eminent domain", which gives the jurisprudential basis for compulsory acquisition is exercisable provided that the acquisition is for a public purpose and suitable compensation is paid to the landowners. Besides Art.300-A of the Constitution, the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provides the legal framework for compulsory acquisition of land by the State in India. The procedure established by the Act has been made applicable for acquisition of lands for purposes prescribed in many other laws, for example, the Town and Country Planning Acts of the States. However, the Act has been seen as a law that has not only outlived its utility but also is positively draconian. Efforts have been made -to provide alternatives. The latest endeavour in this regard is the Land Acquisition Bill, 1998. The reform of the Act assumes greater significance when set against the backdrop of the current debate on the relevance of the doctrine of "eminent domain" itself.

The Act contemplates publication of preliminary and final notifications, the filing of objections by persons interested in the acquisition, enquiry by the Collector, filing of claims for compensation, enquiry into the claims and the award by the Collector, reference to the Court at the instance of persons dissatisfied by the award of the Collector, taking possession of the lands by the Collector and payment of compensation.

The Act has received flak on many accounts. Prominent among them is the inclusive definition of "public purpose" for which the land has to be acquired. In particular, the Act has been criticised for deeming acquisition of land for a state owned company/corporation a public purpose. The Act has also been criticised for not recognising.the rights of certain categories of people who do not own land but are nonetheless dependent on the land for their survival, like landless labourers, forest cultivators, pastoral people and artisans.The Act permits the Collector to dispense with the normal process of enquiry in case there is urgency for acquisition. No guidelines have been given for the exercise of urgency powers with the result that many a time these powers have been abused. The compensation payable is based on the value of the land as on the date of the publication of the preliminary notification. This method of assessment of compensation ignores the subsequent increases in land value. No time limit is prescribed for payment of compensation. There is thus the threat of the landowner being dispossessed without any money in return. Besides these deficiencies, the Act is condemned as being insensitive to the issues of displacement, resettlement and rehabilitation, which are inextricably linked to the process of acquisition.                                    

A welcome change as regards the Bill of 1998 is that the Government has encouraged widespread consultation and debate with reference to its contents. The Bill places certain restrictions on the acquisition of lands in areas mentioned in Sch.V of the Constitution. The Bill also reduces the time within which objections have to be filed from 30 days to 21 days. The Government is required to issue t le declaration under S.6 (1) within 6 months of the S.4 (1) preliminary notification. The award is to be made by the Collector within one year of the S.4 (1) notification. There is provision made for greater public participation through the requirement of public hearing. The Collector can make a report to the Government that the lands need not be acquired on account of public disagreement. However, such a report is purely recornmendatory in character. Compensation is to be paid within 60 days of the display of a summary of the acquisition proceedings, such summary being an innovation of the Bill. An aggrieved person, unlike in the Act, can now compel a reference to the Court by the Collector. The Bill also provides for a Special Tribunal for the expeditious disposal of land acquisition cases. The Bill also makes provision with regard to the resettlement and rehabilitation of displaced people in that it requires the entity requiring land to give estimates of possible displacement, costs of resettlement and rehabilitation, etc. Another introduction in the Bill is the acquisition of land for the purpose of industrial estates.  

The Bill is currently the subject matter of intense debate. Its contents are being analysed along with the provisions of the National Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 1998. The wide power's given to the Collector are being viewed with suspicion.

The reduction in the time to file objections is regarded as a retrograde step. It is also being pointed out that the Bill does not make any significant departure from the 1894 Act as regards the connected issues of displacement, resettlement and rehabilitation. The categories of people excluded by the Act remain so even now. The definition of "public purpose" is yet to be recast to make it immune to abuse. The fundamental assumption of the Act and the Bill, namely, that people can be displaced from their lands in return for a sum of money, is being re-examined. And a larger question is being asked now: how relevant is the doctrine of eminent domain today?