India / Land Acquisition Act: Imperial by nature

TOI, 18 December

What is the history of Land Acquisition Act, 1894?

The Act goes back to British rule. The earliest law on land acquisition was the Bengal Regulation Act I of 1824 enacted to promote British commercial interests. This was replaced by Act I of 1850, by which the provision for land acquisition was extended to Calcutta town, the Indian British Capital, so that land needed for public works could be obtained without any legal problems (In fact, CP(I)M Politburo member and Left Front Chairman, Biman Bose, avowedly declared at several Press meets that the land acquisition drive in Singur is very much in the line of those of Imperial times when Sutanati grew into the British Capital, Calcutta. He emphasized on the fact that had the lands not been then acquired, Sutanati would have remained a non-industrialised village like Singur of our time. Interestingly, Ravi Kant, the general manager of Tata Motors took recourse to the same Imperial rhetoric while talking about their proposed small car plant at a press meet “It’s going to be a jewel in the crown for Bengal" - International Post) . By 1857, various laws on the subject of land acquisition were consolidated as Act IV and it was made applicable to the whole of British India. All such land acquisition acts enacted before 1870 had the draw back of protracted arbitration and leagal wrangling leading to delays and heavy cost. Further changes were brought in to accomodate the need for more land for the expanding railways in the country. Finally the Act of March 1894 replaced all previous laws relating to land acquisition and was meant to acquire land for public purpose and for companies. This Act made the collector's award of compensation final unless alerted by a decree of civil court in a regular suit and it helped speed up the the process of determining compensation.

How does the Act operate?

The government, whether at the centre or a state, is free to acquire any land provided it is for a "public purpose" such as improving transport and communication. The state could acquire a land for a land for a non-State body like a company, as in the case of Tata Motors in Singur. The government has to give notice to the owners of the land and compensate them according to the "market value" of the property. The owners can challenge the acquisition, but the government can overrule them on the grounds of "public purpose". Once it's done, the acquisition itself cannot be questioned. The owners can only challenge the compensation decided by the government. In case of urgency, the Act allows the government to acquire the land without waiting to hear any objections to the acquisition.

What have been the major amendments to the Act?

After notifying the acquisition, the government often took too long to declare the "public purpose" for which it was being acquired after which the compensation to be decided. Landowners suffered due to such delays as market value would be decided according to the date when the government publicised its intention to acquire the land. Hence, through an amendment in 1967, the period for justifying the "public purpose" was fixed as three years. Later in 1984, Parliament felt that even three years was too long and this period was slashed to one year. Any delay beyond that meant that if there was an increase in land price in the intervening time, the State would have to pay the escalated price. The 1984 amendment also ensured that the rate of interest for delayed payment was increased from 4% to 9% for the first year and 15% for the remaining period.

What objections to the Act have been raised?

Detractors see it as a colonial legacy with entire process of the acquisition in the hands of an "administrator", an officer below the rank of district collector, giving too much power to the exicutive of the day, in continuation of Imperial traditions of British India. No multi-sectoral body comprising local representatives and social scientists is involved. Full rights and entitlements of the affected are not legally enforceable as the government is yet to have a proper national policy on rehabilitation and compensation.