Bulldozing Lives
The following write up has been prepared by Dipanjan Raichaudhuri. For some reason (perhaps not too difficult to guess) this major human rights violation, which has occurred so close to Kolkata, has gone almost unnoticed by the media. Please circulate this as widely as possible -- it is the least that we can do to stand by the victims who refuse to take it lying down.
Santanu Chacraverti
Durga Puja as Protest: Small Traders in West Bengal
By Dipanjan Raichaudhuri
The four days of Durga Puja signify carnival time in West Bengal. On the main Saptami Puja day, Thursday the 18th of October, a few of us witnessed a tiny act of defiance by the small traders of Nonachandanpukur Bazaar, in Barrackpore, within the area loosely called Greater Calcutta.
I say Nonachandanpukur Bazaar, but the 58 year old bazaar was bulldozed to the ground on December 29, 2006, by the now familiar combination of policemen and party cadre. The site is fenced with corrugated tin, and through cracks and spaces we saw broken and rusted bars and beams, remnants of the rampage which included looting of the shops. It may be noted that the municipality acted in contempt of a stay order granted in favour of the traders by the High Court at Kolkata.
We spoke to Gopal, the lad whose arm was twisted and broken. We saw the streetside bamboo and polythene tent housing the wares of the two daughters of Bimal Saha who died of a heart attack shortly after his shop was razed to the ground and his wares looted. We heard of the untimely deaths of Dayal Pal, Goutam Ghosh, Mahadeb Pal and Narayan Das, of Sheikh Rahim who
lost his reason after the police beat him mercilessly with their lathhis.
Why did all this take place?
The local municipality wants to build a G+12, a 12-storeyed multiplex, the lowest two storeys to be let for commercial activities. The 500 traders of the original market (330 with trade licenses) requested the municipality to allow them to occupy G-level stalls, but the municipality would only agree to the allotment of stalls underground or upstairs. It may be noted that the traders paid a receipted sum of Rs 20000 out of the Rs 80000 raised by the municipality in 1978 for buying the land, and speak of their rights from solid ground.. For the 200 regular rural 'chashi' vendors, the traders wanted a G-level area at the back of the market complex, but the municipality refused to recognise their rights, though there was a flourishing 'chashibazaar' in the now demolished market. Also, there was no rehabilitation package for the 50 regular hawkers.
The traders did not agree to the municipality's proposal. The answer was the demolition of this busy and important market, a step which caused great inconvenience to the local buyers, 7000 of whom have signed their support for the demands of the traders.
The interim alternative offered by the municipality was a cramped space at a distance from the original site. All, except about 25, boycotted the "alternative".
We saw them in their roadside shanties occupying the little space between the tin fencing and the main road. We saw their second roadside market farther up Barasat Road. We went into the "para"
localities where the residents had allowed them to sit in front of their houses with their wares.
We saw the human spirit, indomitable and defiant.
Why must one say this? It must be understood that Barrackpore is the fief of its CPI(M) MP, Tarit Topdar, whose house is visible from the market, and 24 out of the 24 councillors of the municipality are CPI(M) controlled. These small traders have created the first visible dent in the chariot of the juggernaut here. Imagine their desperation and their courage.
To broadcast their protest, the Nonachandanpukur Byabasayee Bachao Committee decided to continue the bazaar's Durga Puja on the main Barrackpore Barasat road, in front of the fencing itself. The local thana promptly sent a police guard to prevent them from installing an image of the deity. Finally the police backed out, the Bachao Committee having told the OC and the SDPO that they would not encroach on the road and wanted neither electricity nor a fire protection certificate as they would light lamps and not use any of the listed inflammable materials, and so did not need police permission. Surely, they asked, police permission is not necessary just for worship of the deity? Perhaps an even more potent argument was the alternative they aired: they would hire a truck and organise a mobile Puja, touring Barrackpore with their protest.
The small people of West Bengal have found their voice. One sees it everyday everywhere, there yesterday in Tiljala, where lived Rijwanur Rahman, here today in Nonachandanpukur.
The High Court has rejected the contempt petition, reportedly on the strange ground that it was not clear who demolished the market.
The Supreme Court of India has delivered a judgment on 16 October 2007 pertaining to land acquisition by the government.
This is a judgment that appears to bear directly on the question of land acquisition in Singur for setting up the Tata factory. May it be noted that the West Bengal state government had invoked the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 for acquiring land at Singur. In the aforesaid order the Supreme Court says that the 1894 Act may not be invoked for acquiring land for a private corporation. It also gives further directions regarding the situation when the government may step in to help a private company acquire land.
Unfortunately, the judgment does not seem to have been posted as yet at the Supreme Court website: http://www.judis.nic.in/supremecourt/chejudis.asp .
(Here one can search for a judgment by using the search tools indicated therein.)
The judgment ought to be posted soon enough, so one should keep a lookout at the above web address. The Dainik Statesman report on the judgment that appeared on 18 October seems to be somewhat inadequate.
So I am pasting below the news items that appeared in the Times of India and the gurgaonscoop.
Santanu Chacraverti
'Only land not suited to agriculture should be acquired'
17 Oct 2007, 0039 hrs IST, Dhananjay Mahapatra,TNN
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has said that the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, stipulates that agricultural land should not be acquired for setting up a factory or for any other corporate purpose. Striking down acquisition of land for the 'Ganesha Project' of International Tractors Limited in village Chak Gujran by the Punjab government, the Bench laid down extensive guidelines, culling it out from the statutory rules.
ITL had entered into an agreement with Renault Agriculture, France, which holds 20% shares in ITL, for manufacture of latest technology tractors to boost exports. The Punjab government had issued the land acquisition notification saying establishment of the factory would contribute to the general welfare and prosperity of the whole community.
The Bench said: "When the state intends to proceed with the acquisition of land, it must form an opinion that lands which are going to be acquired are not good agricultural lands. The rules, by and large, lay down a statutory policy and the question of ignoring it by the state does not arise".
"Good agricultural land", as per rules, means "any land which, considering the level of agricultural production and the crop pattern of the area in which it is situated, is of average productivity and includes garden or grove land," the court said.
Whenever a company makes an application to the appropriate government for acquisition of any land, that government shall direct the collector to submit a report to it after satisfying that:
- The company made its best efforts to locate land in the locality suitable for acquisition.
- The company failed to acquire the land despite reasonable efforts to get such land by negotiations with the persons concerned on payment of reasonable price.
- The land proposed to be acquired is suitable for the purpose
- The area proposed to be acquired is not excessive.
- The company is in a position to utilise the land expeditiously.
- Where the land proposed to be acquired is good agricultural land, that no alternative suitable site can be found so as to avoid acquisition of that land.
Where the land proposed to be acquired is agricultural land, the court put the onus on the collector to consult the senior agricultural officer of the district to ascertain whether it is "good agricultural land" or not. After doing so, the collector is also to ascertain the approximate amount of compensation likely to be paid for the land and also whether the company offered a reasonable price, the court said.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The following taken from:
http://www.gurgaonscoop.com/story/2007/10/17/15011/177
Govt Can't Cite Public Good To Take Land For Cos; land not suited to agriculture should be acquired
By Ravi shankar, Section Gurgaon Real Estate Property
Posted on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 01:50:11 AM EST
The Supreme Court has added a new twist to the government's land acquisition policy. In a ruling that may cause further discomfiture to the Centre and states on the SEZ issue, the court has drawn a distinction between land acquired by the government for public purposes and that for a private company while saying a notification can't espouse both purposes simultaneously.
A bench of Justices S B Sinha and H S Bedi said: ``The state is obligated to issue a notification clearly stating whether the acquisition is for a public purpose or for a company. A declaration is to be made either for a public purpose or for a company. It cannot be both.''
This part of the judgment might also have ramifications for the land acquired by the West Bengal government in Singur. The state government's July 21, 2006, notification for acquisition of land in Hooghly district under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 appears to have cited both the purposes public as well as the establishment of a private company.
The SC ruling came in the wake of a dispute over setting up a tractor factory in Punjab. The court asked for strict interpretation of land acquisition rules and said: "When properties of citizens are being compulsorily acquired by a state in exercise of its power...the existence of public purpose and payment of compensation are principal requisites.''
Supreme Court Says
- Govt can issue a land acquisition notification either for public purpose or for a company.
- It cannot be for both. When acquiring land for cos, govt must make sure it's not good agricultural land.
- Good agricultural land is defined as any land with average productivity, including gardens and groves.
- Only land not suited to agriculture should be acquired: SC
- The company made its best efforts to locate land in the locality suitable for acquisition
- The company failed to acquire the land despite reasonable efforts to get such land by negotiations with the persons concerned on payment of reasonable price
- The land proposed to be acquired is suitable for the purpose
- The area proposed to be acquired is not excessive
- The company is in a position to utilise the land expeditiously
- Where the land proposed to be acquired is good agricultural land, that no alternative suitable site can be found so as to avoid acquisition of that land
No comments:
Post a Comment