Face-off: Return land acquired for industry?

It is important to share the benefits of growth and industrialisation equitably across all segments of our society. It is, perhaps, even more important that all stakeholders perceive that the government is acting in an even-handed manner and not discriminating against a group. These issues become critical for land that is a scarce resource in our country. Moreover, there is strong emotive content to land. It is, therefore, understandable that there is a strong resistance by farmers against any move to divest land, and especially if it is done at perceptibly below market prices. There is also a strong case for farmers to share in the capital gains that accrue to the landowners once it has been put to industrial or real estate use.

Due to these reasons, Ficci has taken a stand that it is optimum if the state has a minimal role in land acquisition. Experience has shown that disputes and dissatisfaction are minimised when prospective buyers work directly with farmers to acquire land. It needs to be clarified that in case a minority , acting on irrational and narrow selfish reasons, is preventing the necessary land acquisition, the state would need to facilitate its take over. In circumstances where such an approach has not been followed and there is widespread resentment against land acquisition , it is advisable that the state reverses such an action and hands back the land to its earlier owners. However, it is advisable that instances of such reversals are minimised, if not eliminated.

This requires that each provincial government reviews the existing land acquisition laws and practices that are, in most cases, inherited from the colonial era and are not in keeping with the current aspirations of a democratic society. India needs to expand its manufacturing capacity, and land will inevitably be required for this. It is, therefore, important that further politicisation of the issue is avoided. This can be achieved if state governments, led by a model law from the central government, announce a modern land acquisition policy. In this effort, care must be taken to ensure that the terms of land of acquisition are not made so onerous that large-scale manufacturing activity is ruled out in our economy.




NOTHING WRONG IN HANDING IT BACK

Nityanand Jayaraman writer & researcher

The Tatas claim that farmland acquired for industrial purpose should not be returned to farmers. Whether this claim is legally tenable is for the courts to decide, but the law often has little to do with what’s right and what’s wrong, and what’s fair and what’s not. Ratan Tata will be no poorer if this land were to be redistributed. The farmers, on the other hand, will be if the land is not returned to them. Much of the land handed over to Tata Motors is still cultivable.

With the monsoon arriving on schedule, farmers who get back their land now will be able to reap a successful harvest. Before the Tatas arrived in Singur, farmers here were not just making do but were downright prosperous. Singur was a net exporter of vegetables and agricultural produce. The economic dependence of farmers and sharecroppers on this fertile land is what prompted the opposition . They were not convinced that industrialisation would be a suitable replacement.

That sentiment hasn’t changed even now. In Jagatsinghpur, Orissa, betel vine farmers are fighting against the Posco steel plant. In Thervoy, Tamil Nadu, a Dalit village of peasants and grazers are fighting the French tyre giant Michelin from taking over their grazing commons. Writing for the International Herald Tribune on the Singur controversy, a journalist commented, “It is easier to produce a car for the cost of a Lexus surround-sound stereo system than it is to separate Indians from their land and from the idea of land.” It is to tear apart Indians from their land that the British enacted the draconian Land Acquisition Act, which permits the state to forcibly acquire land for public purpose. At that time, public purpose was defined by our white masters. Today, public purpose is defined by our corporate masters.

If the courts decide that repatriation of alienated land to their rightful owners is against the law, it is time to change the laws. If farmland can be forcibly acquired from farmers to be handed over to industrialists , what is wrong in forcibly acquiring industrial land for handing over to farmers.