Peril of land acquisition

Farming or farmer? which one of these two you want to protect while acquiring farm land for private industries? Naturally, the farmer comes first becuase he is the voter.

And this seems to be the letter and spirit of the draft bill on land acquisition. The government has woken up to the riots in Singur and Bhatta Parsaul and its cautiousness reflects on the draft Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill (LARR) 2011 released by the rural development ministry. It has many carrots dangling to lure a farmer to sell his land regardless of the factors like ensuring food security and ecological balance.

The bill is no different from the archaic Land Acquisition Act of 1894 designed by the British rulers suiting their needs to exploit locals excepting more additive sugar on the coated pill. It has a provision to fix the compensation amount at six times the market value of land for rural land-losers, while it is twice the market value in urban areas.

As for rehabilitation and resettlement, land losers will get Rs 3,000 subsistence allowance for 12 months and Rs 2000 monthly annuity for 20 years, indexed to inflation. There will be mandatory provision for employment of one person from each affected family or a one-time grant of Rs 2 lakh for the family.

It is expected to be revised owing to the dissatisfied farmers' appeal to the government. The demand is for the increment of annuity from Rs 2,000 to Rs 12,000 a month for the period of 33 years in place of 20 years. If a land owner has five sons, all of them have to be provided similar benefits. While the provisions of the bill are applicable to land acquisitions in excess of 100 acres, the demand is to extend the same to even lesser area. And the rural development minister has nodded approvingly.

All that is fine keeping the welfare of land losers in mind. The measures are effective in silencing the rioters and converting them to voters. But, can you ignore its impact on socio-economy? The bill does not talk about agriculture laboureres, while protecting the interests of land losers. Nobody is obligated to ensure their livelihood. We know they are also voters, but the leaders know their votes are dirt cheap to purchase.

The largesse in the bill is at the cost of the exchequer and in other words it is subsidising private businesses. An investor developing an SEZ can earn untaxed profit for the first five years, thereafter conditional taxation depending on reinvestment of profit. No part of the profit percolates to the common man or a land loser. This will hold true for non-SEZ private investors too.

The industries always eye fertile land because of the water table, and the bill is mute on the protection of agriculture land. It is blind to the fact that the cultivated land is diminishing because of urbanisation and industrialisation. In 2001, 64.6 percent of total area was agricultural land in Karnataka, now it has come down to 52 percent. Global Investors’ Meet has estimated the land requirement for the new industries at 10,300 acres that would make a further dent. You know you can’t bridle inflation unless you have a control over supply side. And how can we ensure perpetual food supply with diminishing cultivated land?

The existing law bars a non-agriculturist buying an agriculture land. An additional need is to restrict an agriculturist to sell his land for the lure of money. A farmer should not be entitled to sell a farm land just because he is the title owner. Fertile land is state property and its conservation is imperative in ensuring food security and ecological balance.