Upload
others
View
10
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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.