Due to large peasant demonstrations and political opposition, the current government has not been able to pass these changes in parliament. However, as a result, and bypassing the existing democratic structure, the amendments were introduced as regulations approved by the President – a provision reserved for urgent legislative changes outside the parliamentary session, which are only valid until the next session. These amendments were not passed in Parliament as they made changes that would have devastating effects on farmers, farmers, farm workers, loggers, Adivasi, fishing workers and other members of rural subsistence farming in India which relies heavily on agriculture and/or forestry due to strong opposition to the decision to cancel all protections introduced by the law. While, on the one hand, social movements protesting against violent land acquisition in India have mobilized to impose important legislative changes and hold the state and corporations accountable, at least on paper, to affected communities, on the other hand, these same laws are constantly being overturned by the dominant forces to cement a neoliberal order in the trade of land and natural resources. The strict application of these laws, however watered down, is a reason for a new struggle. The acquisition of land by a state is rooted in the concept of eminent estate. According to this doctrine, the state can do anything in the public interest. It is based on two Latin political concepts according to which the government can only acquire its land in exceptional circumstances, even with the prior consent of a local body or autonomous district councils. In addition, the project`s development plan must be launched within five years to ensure that their livelihoods are not affected. Purpose of the ARR Under the Act, trade union or state governments may acquire land for their own use, possession and control, including for public sector enterprises and for “public purposes”, and include the following objectives: The Constitution of India originally provided for the right to property (including land) under Articles 19 and 31.
Article 19 guarantees all citizens the right to acquire, own and dispose of property. Article 31 states that “no one shall be deprived of his property except as permitted by law”. It was also pointed out that compensation is paid to a person whose property has been stolen for public purposes (often subject to a wide range of meanings). The Forty-fourth Amendment of 1978 removed the right to property from the list of fundamental rights with a new provision, Section 300-A, which stated that “no person shall be deprived of his property except the authority of law” (Constitution 44th Amendment, w.e.f. 10.6.1979). The amendment has ensured that the right to property is no longer a fundamental right, but a constitutional/statutory right/right, and that in case of violation, an aggrieved person has the right of appeal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India through the High Court and not the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. The State must pay compensation for such acquired land, buildings or structures (inserted by the Constitution, Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964, the same is found in earlier decisions where the right to property was a fundamental right (such as 1954 AIR 170, 1954 SCR 558, which proposed that the word “compensation” used in Article 31(2) implies full compensation, This is the market value of the property at the time of acquisition. The legislator must “ensure that what is determined as payable is compensation, that is, a fair equivalent of what has been withheld from the owner”). Elsewhere, Justice, Reddy, O Chinnappa (State Of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan Tale on 7.
July 1983), that the fundamental right to property was abolished because of its incompatibility with the objectives of “justice”, social, economic and political and “equality of status and opportunity” and with the establishment of a “democratic socialist republic as provided for in the Constitution. There is no reason for a new concept of property to replace the old one in order to realize the remnants of the laissez-faire doctrine and create a new oligarchy in the name of efficiency. [15] Efficiency has many facets, and a foolproof test of efficiency has not yet been found to meet the very different needs of a developing society such as ours” (1983 AIR 803, 1983 SCR (3) 327). The concept of efficiency was introduced by Reddy J., O Chinnappa, in conjunction with the condition of infallibility. [16] The power to take ownership from the individual is rooted in the idea of the eminent domain. The doctrine of the eminent states in the field, the sovereign, can do anything if the act of the sovereign involves the public interest. The doctrine authorizes the sovereign to acquire private land for public use, provided that the public nature of the use can be proved beyond doubt. The doctrine is based on the following two Latin maxims: (1) Salus populi suprema lex (The good of the people is the supreme law) and (2) Necessitas publica major est quam (Public necessity is greater than private necessity). [13] In the history of modern India, this doctrine has been challenged twice (overall), once when land reform was initiated, and once when banks were nationalized. [14] All acquisitions for private use require companies to provide rehabilitation and resettlement services to those affected by the acquisition.
The Land Acquisition Act of 2013 was amended in 2015, resulting in the following shortcomings: The land acquisition process in India has proven unpopular among citizens. The amount of reimbursement is relatively small compared to the current price index in the economy. In addition, displaced persons often do not find adequate employment due to low human capital ([32]). Some of the important issues related to land acquisition are discussed below. [12] Major land acquisitions and conflicts occurring in densely populated rural areas. Major Indian infrastructure projects such as the Yamuna Highway paid about 2800 crore ($500 million) for land between 2007 and 2009,[21] or more than $25,000 per acre. For contextual purposes, this can be compared to land prices in other parts of the world: land acquisition is simply the process by which the government can acquire private land. This may include any other private property.
It is usually carried out for public works purposes for infrastructure construction, urbanization, development and industrialization. The government may also acquire land for private companies to build factories or other industrial facilities. The purchase of land is a contract between the willing buyer and the willing seller, whereas in the case of a land acquisition, the owner has no choice. That is why the right to property is not a fundamental right. However, since its entry into force, state governments and investors have reported many procedural difficulties in acquiring land needed for large national projects: – For rural areas – 4 times the market value of the land acquired The authorization clause of the law requires the consent of 80% of the families concerned in case of acquisition by private institutions pursuing public objectives, and 70% of public-private partnerships (PPPs) that achieve public objectives. The government`s draft national rehabilitation policy indicates that about 75 percent of displaced people have been waiting for rehabilitation since 1951. [33] However, expulsion is only considered with respect to “direct expulsion.” This rehabilitation policy does not apply to fishermen, landless workers and artisans. About one in ten Indian tribe members is displaced. Dam projects have displaced nearly a million Adivasis, with similar suffering for displaced Dalits. According to some estimates, 40% of IDPs are of tribal origin (Fernandes, 2008).
The government has a duty to work publicly. For this, they have to take care of the construction most of the time. And for that, they need land. And it is possible that the land they need is sometimes private property. In such a case, the power of the government to take possession of that land outweighs the individual`s right to that property. The government can acquire private land for public works. This is called land acquisition. The colonial law of 1894 continued to be used as the primary land acquisition law for “development projects,” a term that was interpreted as broadly as ever over time until 2013. Before moving on to recent legislative changes, a careful review of the 1894 LAA is essential to understanding the legal and institutional framework applied by the state with respect to land, displacement and development.
Basically, the term “public utility” was elaborated in the LAA of 1894 in Article 3(f) to include the need for sites for planned development, expansion or construction of new villages, urban planning, the pursuit of a government program or policy, housing for the poor and/or people affected by natural disasters, the construction of public or state offices. and for all other plans or plans of development, including the construction of railways, irrigation canals, etc. The Act also includes corporations, and thus private capital, within its scope, provided that government approval has been obtained in advance and is “likely to be of public interest” (s. 40(b)). The consequences of land acquisition in India are manifold. Empirical and theoretical studies on displacement through government acquisition for development projects have so far focused on the direct and immediate negative consequences of land acquisition. [26] Most summary and descriptive accounts of the immediate consequences of land acquisition for development projects rely heavily on Michael Cernea`s “impoverishment risk model,” which lists about eight “risks” or “dimensions” of developmental displacement.