Towards a fair exchange

THERE could not be a more appropriate time than now to ensure a national rehabilitation and resettlement policy for the thousands of people displaced by construction of dams and other big development projects. The Supreme Court has gone ahead and given the green signal for the construction of a 90 metre high Sardar Sarovar dam that would only enhance the number of poor people who will be forced to leave their traditional homes to earn a livelihood in unknown and new surroundings. The higher the dam, the larger the number of those displaced.

Since 1986 there has been very little action in formulating and pushing through a national rehabilitation and resettlement policy. According to S. R. Hiremath, convenor of the Jan Vikas Andolan and president of the National Committee for Protection of Natural Resource (NCPNR), large projects have displaced 2.13 crore people since Independence. Rabi Ray, former Lok Sabha Speaker, however, puts the number at 1.5 crores. Whatever the figure, the numbers are colossal. Seventy-five per cent of those dispossessed/displaced were not rehabilitated in the true sense of the word. Land was only given to those who owned land. The landless were given some monetary compensation which, for lack of knowledge on investing it, they spent recklessly. Most of these people are in urban slums and destitutes.

In Uttar Pradesh and Orissa, where the Singrauli power plant and the Hirakud dam have come up, people have been displaced three or four times. All this has been documented by voluntary groups. But strangely enough we still do not have a national rehabilitation and resettlement policy (R and R). Now, voluntary groups working on people's rights and displacement issues have found out that there was a move to sneak through a Land Acquisition (amendment) Bill without the complementary R and R policy.

The NCPNR has been campaigning for combining the Land Acquisition Act and the National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy to form the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill, 2000. This is to ensure that even while the Government takes away precious land on the one hand it ensures a well thought out rehabilitation package on the other.

It was quite by accident that the NCPNR got to know that the group of ministers, headed by K. C. Pant, were trying to push through only the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill without incorporating points on rehabilitation. This meant the Government was reneging on its promise to voluntary organisations to merge the two issues of acquisition and rehabilitation after national consultation in January 1999.

Sending a copy of the voluntary organisations draft bill to the Prime Minister, former Speaker of the Lok Sabha Rabi Ray has pointed out it is a matter of concern that 50 years after Independence, there is no policy or law to give legal protection to those displaced from their home/habitat in the name of national development and progress. Pushing through land acquisition without combining key features of rehabilitation, as suggested by voluntary agencies, will be a matter of grave injustice to tribals and the rural poor.

What constitutes public purpose has always been a matter of dispute. In the draft, voluntary organisations and the concept of public purpose has been clearly stated. Acquisition of land for private companies, which work for profit, is not permitted or recognised as public purpose.

There is a fundamental difference in voluntary organisations and the official approach to land acquisition. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and later amendments are based on the doctrine of Eminent Domain where the State has absolute right to its property and that of the subject is only paramount. The citizen holds his property always subject to the right to take it away for public purpose. The draft bill pleads that the doctrine of Eminent Domain should be replaced by the Principle of Trustship, practised by American courts. Under the doctrine of trusteeship, the Government is a trustee of the property and has a clear moral and legal responsibility to justify that the acquisition is for the welfare of the people. So far this doctrine has been applied to natural resources and common property. The voluntary organisations point out that it can now be extended to land acquisition.

The right to property is no longer a fundamental right. It is only a constitutional right. There is at present no constitutional bar to the Central or State Governments to enact a law to acquire property for a purpose not defined as public purpose. However, by keeping out profit making companies from land acquisition, the draft bill seeks to reduce the extent of displacement.

The act did not define the term "project affected persons". This has been included in the present draft to include those displaced who have been deprived of their sources of livelihood as a result of acquisition. These include rural artisans, traders and persons deriving income from the collection of non-wood forest produce.

According to the act, notices for the intention to acquire and actual acquisition are to be published. It was assumed that every individual concerned was aware of the notice when it was issued or published in the gazette. However, in a country where there is such a high level of illiteracy, the nature of the project, the cost-benefit analysis, extent of acquisition and displacement have to be spelt out. The Government can approve the project only after obtaining the consent of the gram sabhas in the affected zone.

The anti-women provisions of the act have been dropped. Fifty per cent of those attending a public hearing have to be women. Land in lieu of acquired land has to be allotted in the joint names of the man and his wife.

The draft bill also clarifies that an affected person who does not want alternate land in the benefit zone must be paid the market value of the land offered to him. Those landless or those partially displaced are to be compensated with minimum wages for a year.

While State laws provide only for rehabilitation of those affected by projects notified by the Government, the draft bill provides for rehabilitation in all projects which have benefit zones.

So far, solatium is payable only to the extent of 30 per cent of the market value of the land acquired. The draft bill provides for 100 per cent solatium. Payment is not limited to landlords but to all project affected persons.

If a person is displaced for the second time within 30 years of the first displacement, he or she would be entitled to an additional amount of solatium, equivalent to the amount paid earlier.

A State Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Commission has been proposed in the draft bill. It would have the power to monitor the implementation of the act and ensure rehabilitation and resettlement of the project affected. Provision has also been made for a National Land Acquisition and R and R Commission to deal with project displacement in two or more States and to assist the State commissions.

The draft bill reduces the period of land acquisition and rehabilitation from the existing three years to 18 months of the notification being issued to acquire land. The draft also spells out that if land is not acquired within a year of the notification being issued, the notification will be deemed invalid and those residing in the area will continue to enjoy all the benefits of occupancy. Land acquired for a specific purpose cannot be used for any other purpose. And the process of acquisition cannot be deemed to be over unless compensation in the form of alternate land or cash is paid.

With eminent pro-poor MPs like Kuldip Nayar and Shabana Azmi, in favour of the draft bill, good sense should prevail at least now when the future of so many displaced by the Sardar Sarovar is at stake.

USHA RAI

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Features
Previous : For the public good
Next     : Sweet revenge