Land Acquisition Act 2013

Context:

Rehabilitation of the displaced families as a result of Jewar airport project has been carried out in accordance with provision of Land Acquisition Act 2013

Main features of Land Acquisition Act 2013:

Clearly defines various types of “public purpose” projects for which, Government can acquire private land.

Acquiring land: For private project, 80% affected families must agree. For PPP project, 70% affected families must agree. Only then land can be acquired.

Social impact assessment: Under Social impact assessment (SIA) even need to obtain consent of the affected artisans, labourers, share-croppers, tenant farmers etc whose (sustainable) livelihood will be affected because of the given project.

Compensation: Compensation proportion to market rates. 4 times the market rate in rural area. 2 times in urban area. Affected artisans, small traders, fishermen etc. will be given one-time payment, even if they don’t own any land.

To ensure food security: Fertile, irrigated, multi-cropped farmland can be acquired only in last resort. If such fertile land is acquired, then Government will have to develop equal size of wasteland for agriculture purpose.

Private entities: If Government acquires the lands for private company- the said private company will be responsible for relief and rehabilitation of the affected people. Additional rehabilitation package for SC/ST owners.

Safeguards: State Governments have to setup dispute settlement Chairman must be a district judge or lawyer for 7 years.

Accountability: Head of the department will be made responsible, for any offense from Government’s side. If project doesn’t start in 5 years, land has to be returned to the original owner or the land bank.  Establishment of Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority for speedy disposal of disputes.

Pros of the Bill:

1. As Social Impact Assessment has been removed for 5 sectors, acquisition time will be less. Project could be established early and it will lead to early growth.
2. Cost of the Project could also be reduced as for SIA a lot of amount has to be spent.
3. The Bill has included 13 more acts of Land acquisition for which there was no fixed criteria to give compensation to the Land owners. Now, people will get proper compensation for their Land.
4. The bill has taken the acquisition of land for private hospitals and private educational institutions within its ambit. So, land owners will get proper compensation if their land will be acquired.
5. The LARR Act, 2013 states that the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 will continue to apply in certain cases, where an award has been made under the 1894 Act. However, if such an award was made five years or more before the enactment of the LARR Act, 2013, and the physical possession of land has not been taken or compensation has not been paid, the LARR Act, 2013 will apply.
   The Bill states that in calculating this time period, any period during which the proceedings of acquisition were held up: (i) due to a stay order of a court, or (ii) a period specified in the award of a Tribunal for taking possession, or (iii) any period where possession has been taken but the compensation is lying deposited in a court or any account, will not be counted.
   So, bill has removed the retrospective application. This is the good signal to the Investors.

Compensation

• Compensation varies with the market rates. In the case of rural area, it is four times the market rate and for an urban area, it is two times. Affected artisans, small traders, fisherman etc. by the land acquisition are given one-time payment even if they do not own any land.
• There is also provision for rehabilitation and resettlement award which includes employment to one member of an affected family.
• If Government acquires the lands for a private company, the said private company will be responsible for relief and rehabilitation of the affected people along with an additional rehabilitation package for SC/ST owners.
• If such fertile land is acquired, the Government will have to develop an equal size of wasteland for agriculture purpose.
• In case someone is not satisfied with an award under the Act, they can approach the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (LARR) Authority.

About Section 24 (2)

• Under Section 24(2), land acquisition made under the old law of 1894 lapses if the award of compensation had been made five years before the new Act came into force, but has not been paid.
• In such cases, the process will have to be gone through afresh under the new Act, which mandates higher compensation.
• There are cases in which farmers and other land-owners have refused the compensation, leading to delay in the government taking possession.
• In this situation, the compensation amount is deposited in the government treasury.
• According to one interpretation, if this is done, the acquisition process is saved. Then again, others contend that such cases will fall under the new Act because compensation has not been paid to the land-owners, and the lapsing clause in Section 24 should be applied.

Supreme Court Judgement on Land Acquisition Act

• In 2014, a three-judge Bench, comprising Justices R.M. Lodha, Madan B. Lokur and Kurian Joseph, in Pune Municipal Corporation vs. Harakchand M. Solanki, ruled that the acquisition of a piece of land had “lapsed” because the compensation awarded had neither been paid to the landowners/persons interested nor deposited in the court.
• The same question arose in Indore Development Authority vs. Shailendra. Another three-judge Bench, comprising Justice Arun Mishra, A.K. Goel and M.M. Shantanagoudar, did not accept the earlier Bench’s view. The majority, consisting of the first two judges, ruled that the acquisition would not lapse merely because the compensation amount was not deposited in court, but was instead deposited in the treasury. It ruled that the past practice of more than a century, under which the amount was deposited in the treasury, was not taken into account by the earlier Bench. Some provisions and orders that allowed this practice were not placed before that Bench. Further, the land acquisition in that particular case had been quashed by a High Court in 2008. Since it was not a subsisting process, the question under Section 24(2), whether the acquisition lapsed because of non-payment of compensation or non-deposit in the court, did not arise at all. On these grounds, Justice Mishra and Justice Goel overruled the earlier judgment
• Later, when another case came up before a Bench on which Justices Lokur and Joseph were members, the fact that their earlier judgment had been overruled was brought to their notice. Lawyers appearing before them argued that Justice Mishra’s Bench, being of the same size of the one that rendered the earlier verdict, was bound by it, and ought not to have overruled it. In case, it disagreed with the earlier view, it could have referred the matter to a larger Bench.
• The court, then, put on hold all hearings involving Section 24(2). Later, the question was referred to a larger Bench for an authoritative judgment.

Key Issues and Analysis

• It is not clear whether Parliament has jurisdiction to impose rehabilitation and resettlement requirements on private purchase of agricultural land.
• The requirement of a Social Impact Assessment for every acquisition without a minimum thresholdmay delay the implementation of certain government programmes.
• Projects involving land acquisition and undertaken by private companies or public private partnerships require the consent of 80 per cent of the people affected.  However, no such consent is required in case of PSUs.
• The market value is based on recent reported transactions.  This value is doubled in rural areas to arrive at the compensation amount.  This method may not lead to an accurate adjustment for the possible underreporting of prices in land transactions.
• The government can temporarily acquire land for a maximum period of three years.  There is no provision for rehabilitation and resettlement in such cases.

The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) Bill, 2015

• The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) Bill, 2015 was introduced in the Lok Sabha by the Minister for Rural Development, Mr. Birender Singh on February 24, 2015.  The Bill amends the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARR Act, 2013).  
• The Bill replaces the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) Ordinance, 2014.   
• The LARR Act, 2013 outlines the process to be followed when land is acquired for a public purpose.  Key changes made by the Bill are:
• Provisions of other laws in consonance with the LARR 2013: The LARR Act, 2013 exempted 13 laws (such as the National Highways Act, 1956 and the Railways Act, 1989) from its purview.  However, the LARR Act, 2013 required that the compensation, rehabilitation, and resettlement provisions of these 13 laws be brought in consonance with the LARR Act, 2013, within a year of its enactment (that is, by January 1, 2015), through a notification.  The Bill brings the compensation, rehabilitation, and resettlement provisions of these 13 laws in consonance with the LARR Act, 2013.
• Exemption of five categories of land use from certain provisions: The Bill creates five special categories of land use: (i) defence, (ii) rural infrastructure, (iii) affordable housing, (iv) industrial corridors, and (v) infrastructure projects including Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects where the government owns the land. 
• The LARR Act, 2013 requires that the consent of 80% of land owners is obtained for private projects and that the consent of 70% of land owners be obtained for PPP projects.  The Bill exempts the five categories mentioned above from this provision of the Act. 
• In addition,  the Bill permits the government to exempt projects in these five categories from the following provisions, through a notification:
• The LARR Act, 2013 requires that a Social Impact Assessment be conducted to identify affected families and calculate the social impact when land is acquired. 
• The LARR Act, 2013 imposes certain restrictions on the acquisition of irrigated multi-cropped land and other agricultural land.  For example, irrigated multi-cropped land cannot be acquired beyond the limit specified by the appropriate government. 
• Return of unutilised land: The LARR Act, 2013 required land acquired under it which remained unutilised for five years, to be returned to the original owners or the land bank.  The Bill states that the period after which unutilised land will need to be returned will be: (i) five years, or (ii) any period specified at the time of setting up the project, whichever is later.
• Time period for retrospective application: The LARR Act, 2013 states that the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 will continue to apply in certain cases, where an award has been made under the 1894 Act.  However, if such an award was made five years or more before the enactment of the LARR Act, 2013, and the physical possession of land has not been taken or compensation has not been paid, the LARR Act, 2013 will apply. 
• The Bill states that in calculating this time period, any period during which the proceedings of acquisition were held up: (i) due to a stay order of a court, or (ii) a period specified in the award of a Tribunal for taking possession, or (iii) any period where possession has been taken but the compensation is lying deposited in a court or any account, will not be counted.
• Other changes: The LARR Act, 2013 excluded the acquisition of land for private hospitals and private educational institutions from its purview.  The Bill removes this restriction. 
• While the LARR Act, 2013 was applicable for the acquisition of land for private companies, the Bill changes this to acquisition for ‘private entities’.  A private entity is an entity other than a government entity, and could include a proprietorship, partnership, company, corporation, non-profit organisation, or other entity under any other law.

• The LARR Act, 2013 stated that if an offence is committed by the government, the head of the department would be deemed guilty unless he could show that the offence was committed without his knowledge, or that he had exercised due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence. 
   
• The Bill replaces this provision and states that if an offence is committed by a government official, he cannot be prosecuted without the prior sanction of the government.

Source: PIB

You can find many articles on ACTS AND AMENDMENTS (part of GS II) in our website. Go through these articles share with your friends and post your views in comment section.