Skip to main content

Proposed amendment Bill gives "undue freedom" to state govts to decide on acquiring irrigated land: NAPM

By A Representative
Close on the heels of the Government of India announcing its intention to place the Bill amending the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, during the current session of Parliament, National Alliance for People’s Movements (NAPM), in a statement, has regretted that it may have some “positive points” like seeking majority consent, conducting Social Impact Assessment, an expanded definition of project affected persons, return of land in some cases to land owners. However, on the whole, it seeks to increase the role of the state in land acquisition. Saying that the bill is “tilted towards facilitating land acquisition”, the statement adds, this is one of the major reasons why “consensus on the bill has eluded for long and it has been under the discussion for seventh year now."
“It was introduced in the 13th Lok Sabha in 2007 as two separate Bills and in 14th Lok Sabha as a comprehensive Bill, which was a welcome step. However, after its introduction in 2010, the Bill was changed and continues to advocate acquisition for public private partnership (PPP) projects, private projects, flexible definition of 'public purpose', and acquisition of agricultural land, undermining not only the livelihood of the communities dependent on the Bill but also the food security of the nation”, the statement underscores. NAPM is an alliance of more than a dozen people’s movements across India, including Narmada Bachao Andolan, which is in a major struggle for the displaced people in Madhya Pradesh, and Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti of Gujarat.
The statement says, “The union government was compelled to bring in certain provisions to control the unjustifiable forcible acquisition of land and associated natural resources, such as minerals, for the private companies and their projects. The consent of 80% of affected land losers in the case of private projects and of 70% for PPP projects has now become a precondition, which is a major change.” However, by “excluding government projects and all Infrastructure projects, the Bill has become lame, with land acquisition not applicable in many conflict ridden projects”.
“It is also unacceptable”, the statement says, that “out of 16 central acts and 100 plus state Acts under, which there are provisions for forcible land acquisition, only three Acts have been brought under the purview of the new Bill, i.e. SEZ Act, Defence Act and Cantonment Act. This means that most of the private or public projects where land is being acquired under the Mines and Minerals Act, or states’ Industrial Development Acts, or National Highways Act, or Coal Bearing Area Act, will remain outside the ambit of the Bill.”
“All this indicates that the British legacy is is sought to be continued, with some exception. The UPA has lost the opportunity to make the development planning truly democratic and bring in the role of Gram Sabhas and the Urban Basti Sabhas in planning all the projects, including government and private projects”, the statement says, adding, "The Bill has rejected the Parliamentary Standing Committee's recommendation to leave all agricultural land under cultivation out of the purview of forcible land acquisition. Instead it puts in certain preconditions such as bringing in alternative land under cultivation for acquiring multi-crop land as the last resort, but that does not prevent acquisition of single crop land.”
“Thus 75% of India’s farmers engaged in rain fed agriculture will continue to have sword of land grab and eviction hanging on their heads”, the statement says, adding, “The Bill also gives State governments undue freedom to decide what percentage of irrigated land in a district can be acquired, when it is a issue of national importance. The food security of the country will be jeopardized. How will UPA ensure the amount of food required for Food Security Bill if they continue to brazenly acquire the land from farmers, 180 lakh hectares of land diverted in two decades”.
While resettlement and rehabilitation (R&R) has been linked with land acquisition, “the R&R provisions are cash based. There is a strong doubt that the increased offer of high cash compensation, including 100% solatium, will act as a luring force to make the farmers loose land. In the present situation of inequity between the prices for the agricultural produce vis-à-vis industrial products and services, this will surely happen. Provision of one hectare of land for SC/ST or one acre of land in the command area for irrigation project affected SC/ST families is highly inadequate and will not ensure alternative livelihood after rehabilitation”, the statement reads.

Comments

TRENDING

From Kerala to Bangladesh: Lynching highlights deep social faultlines

By A Representative   The recent incidents of mob lynching—one in Bangladesh involving a Hindu citizen and another in Kerala where a man was killed after being mistaken for a “Bangladeshi”—have sparked outrage and calls for accountability.  

What Sister Nivedita understood about India that we have forgotten

By Harasankar Adhikari   In the idea of a “Vikshit Bharat,” many real problems—hunger, poverty, ill health, unemployment, and joblessness—are increasingly overshadowed by the religious contest between Hindu and Muslim fundamentalisms. This contest is often sponsored and patronised by political parties across the spectrum, whether openly Hindutva-oriented, Islamist, partisan, or self-proclaimed secular.

When a city rebuilt forgets its builders: Migrant workers’ struggle for sanitation in Bhuj

Khasra Ground site By Aseem Mishra*  Access to safe drinking water and sanitation is not a privilege—it is a fundamental human right. This principle has been unequivocally recognised by the United Nations and repeatedly affirmed by the Supreme Court of India as intrinsic to the right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. Yet, for thousands of migrant workers living in Bhuj, this right remains elusive, exposing a troubling disconnect between constitutional guarantees, policy declarations, and lived reality.

Policy changes in rural employment scheme and the politics of nomenclature

By N.S. Venkataraman*  The Government of India has introduced a revised rural employment programme by fine-tuning the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), which has been in operation for nearly two decades. The MGNREGA scheme guarantees 100 days of employment annually to rural households and has primarily benefited populations in rural areas. The revised programme has been named VB-G RAM–G (Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission – Gramin). The government has stated that the revised scheme incorporates several structural changes, including an increase in guaranteed employment from 100 to 125 days, modifications in the financing pattern, provisions to strengthen unemployment allowances, and penalties for delays in wage payments. Given the extent of these changes, the government has argued that a new name is required to distinguish the revised programme from the existing MGNREGA framework. As has been witnessed in recent years, the introdu...

Aravalli at the crossroads: Environment, democracy, and the crisis of justice

By  Rajendra Singh*  The functioning of the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change has undergone a troubling shift. Once mandated to safeguard forests and ecosystems, the Ministry now appears increasingly aligned with industrial interests. Its recent affidavit before the Supreme Court makes this drift unmistakably clear. An institution ostensibly created to protect the environment now seems to have strayed from that very purpose.

'Festive cheer fades': India’s housing market hits 17‑quarter slump, sales drop 16% in Q4 2025

By A Representative   Housing sales across India’s nine major real estate markets fell to a 17‑quarter low in the October–December period of 2025, with overall absorption dropping 16% year‑on‑year to 98,019 units, according to NSE‑listed analytics firm PropEquity. This marks the weakest quarter since Q3 2021, despite the festive season that usually drives demand. On a sequential basis, sales slipped 2%, while new launches contracted by 4%.  

'Structural sabotage': Concern over sector-limited job guarantee in new employment law

By A Representative   The advocacy group Centre for Financial Accountability (CFA) has raised concerns over the passage of the Viksit Bharat – Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (VB–G RAM G), which was approved during the recently concluded session of Parliament amid protests by opposition members. The legislation is intended to replace the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA).

Safety, pay and job security drive Urban Company gig workers’ protest in Gurugram

By A Representative   Gig and platform service workers associated with Urban Company have stepped up their protest against what they describe as exploitative and unsafe working conditions, submitting a detailed Memorandum of Demands at the company’s Udyog Vihar office in Gurugram. The action is being seen as part of a wider and growing wave of dissatisfaction among gig workers across India, many of whom have resorted to demonstrations, app log-outs and strikes in recent months to press for fair pay, job security and basic labour protections.

Public responses to the niqab incident and Iltija Mufti’s legal complaint

By Raqif Makhdoomi*  Following an incident in which the Chief Minister of Bihar was seen pulling aside the niqab of a Muslim woman doctor during a public interaction, the episode drew widespread attention and debate across India. Public reactions were divided, with some defending the action and others criticising it as an infringement on personal autonomy and dignity. The incident was widely circulated on social media and reported by national and international media outlets.