In the previous part we have seen
the benefits and features of compensation that was being offered to the people
whose land was taken by the government for the development purpose, in this
part we will see what are the cons of the compensation system of the bill. The
bill has been criticized mainly for two things which are discussed in detail as
below:
First, there is a huge debate on
account of whether such compensation amount would be enough or
not. Activists argue that prior to the coming up of a development project,
the market price is quite low particularly in rural areas or semi-urban areas,
and so the compensation amount (up to 4 times the market price) may be too
little for a landowner/farmer who is losing his/her livelihood in a big way.
Corporates
argue on the other hand that this compensation amount is too high particularly
in urban areas where the prices may already be very high. They also state that
once it is announced that a development project is going to be constructed in a
particular place, the market price of that land increases significantly for any
area (rural/urban) and so, the compensation amount would be too high to provide
for a private producer or the government.
Activists
however reject this argument by stating that it would be a little share of the
overall investment in the project and so would not affect the project budget
significantly. Still, a compensation of up to only 4 times the market
price seems low, and many Member of Parliaments suggested that this should be
increased to at least 5 to 20 times the market price in at least rural areas if
not urban.
Second, those who would be affected after the establishment of the project, they have not been considered at all in the bill although one could say that this was not the primary purpose of the bill, and second, one could address these through proper implementation and enforcement of the environment regulations for air and water (if not for land). There are issues with those norms though, but for once, this is a secondary problem with the bill itself.
There are other issues however, such as that compensation should not be denied/reduced even if land-for-land is provided, and that those who are losing their livelihood because of land acquisition should also be given monetary compensation.
Second, those who would be affected after the establishment of the project, they have not been considered at all in the bill although one could say that this was not the primary purpose of the bill, and second, one could address these through proper implementation and enforcement of the environment regulations for air and water (if not for land). There are issues with those norms though, but for once, this is a secondary problem with the bill itself.
There are other issues however, such as that compensation should not be denied/reduced even if land-for-land is provided, and that those who are losing their livelihood because of land acquisition should also be given monetary compensation.
These
are major issues which remain unaddressed in this version of the bill. Also,
concerns were expressed by a few MPs, notably the Leader of Opposition Sushma
Swaraj in the Lok Sabha, that many landowners who become rich overnight on
getting compensation money do not understand what to do with this excess money
and use it to buy cars and vehicles rather than invest it in some productive
activity. That concern also remains.
India
is a democratic country and to bring an act that is as important as this one is
a very humongous as well as delicate task. All the aspects need to be discussed
in detail and then after lots of pondering ad discussions, such decisions need
to be taken.
You also can have a say in
this, just post what you feel is right or what is wrong on our website adsn we
will make sure you are heard, if your point is valid.