Gujarat government to Centre: Change "disastrous" law which delays, creates hurdles in land acquisition

By A Representative
In a move that may raise eyebrows of senior Indian activists and experts who contributed heavily in drafting the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (LARR) Act, 2013, the Gujarat government has told Government of India that LARR in its present form will “delay” and “create hurdles” in land acquisition for industrial projects, with “massive potential for misuse” by agriculturists. The pro-industry suggestions – in all about two dozen – are learnt to have been mooted under the direct guidance of additional chief secretary, industries, D Jagatheesa Pandian, a top aspirant of Gujarat chief secretary’s post.
Prepared ahead of the Vibrant Gujarat global business summit, scheduled in mid-January 2014, an authoritative document, in possession of www.counterview.net, containing a nutshell of the proposals, wants to particularly do away with “consent” in instituting projects under public private partnership (PPP), because this would “ground projects at the very start”. The document says, “Consent of majority of only affected families should be taken before a designated officer decided by the government.”
In yet another proposal, the document says, while Social Impact Assessment (SIA) may continue to remain essential for “large and typical projects” while acquiring land, “the entire chapter on SIA should exclude small projects which may be taluka, district or state specific.” In fact, is specifies, SIA should exclude “district roads, irrigation canals, power lines and other infrastructure-related projects”, adding, “In irrigation and other environment-related projects, there is a provision of EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment)”, so in such type of projects SIA should be excluded.”
The document wants the entire SIA procedures, which has “all the ingredients of delaying the acquisition process”, to be “removed”. As a matter of example it says, ”SIA casts obligations on acquiring body for keeping number of public hearings of all the people in the village which may create hurdles for the land acquisition procedure.” In such scenario, “vested” interests may hamper the process.” Then, there is the provision for creating an organization which will look into SIA, which will only prove to be “financially draining on state exchequer” and will “result into inordinate delay” in land acquisition.
The document does not think it is necessary to link food security with land acquisition. Under LARR, it says, in case of acquisition of fertile land, “equivalent area of cultivable wasteland is to be developed for agricultural purpose” in order develop a new multi-crop area. Saying Gujarat cannot put this in practice, it insists, this is because it is a “highly industrialized and urbanized” state, and hence it will be very difficult for it to “swap cultivable land” with other types of wasteland.
The document wants to redefine “market valuation” for land acquisition. As LARR wants people to know that “land may be in acquisition from the date SIA notification”, this would trigger “lot of land speculation” and “instances of sales between SIA and preliminary notifications”. Hence, valuation based on sales preceding three years from SIA notification should instead be adopted. “Even jantri (rate of registration of sales deed) price on that date may be taken and market value to be fixed as 12% interest should be given to take care of inflation up to the date of award”, it says.
Taking objection to LARR provision for return of unutilized land after five years, the document says, “Starting and completion of many projects need more than five years. Even project reports mention of long scheduling. In such case, returning lands to original owner in the name of non-utilization in five years midway is not only disastrous but also defeats the purpose of the Act. Hence, the section needs to be scrapped or suitably amended. Moreover, though general option is given, it is desirable that the Act provides circumstances in which case land is to be returned to the owners and cases of transferring it to land bank.”
The provision that puts “restriction on change of land use” after land acquisition should be scrapped, says the document, emphasizing, “When compensation at enhanced rate, equal amount as solatium and resettlement and rehabilitation (R&R) benefits have been paid, such a restriction is not relevant.” In fact, it says, the lengthy procedure for R&R mentioned in LARR, should be scrapped and replace by Gujarat’s “strong and robust” policy, which requires that the displaced persons to “take care of all affected families and their belongings” with compensation to “the loss to kutcha, pucca structures, shelters, household materials and other belongings of their livelihood etc.”

Comments

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.

Gram sabha as reformer: Mandla’s quiet challenge to the liquor economy

By Raj Kumar Sinha* This year, the Union Ministry of Panchayati Raj is organising a two-day PESA Mahotsav in Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, on 23–24 December 2025. The event marks the passage of the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA), enacted by Parliament on 24 December 1996 to establish self-governance in Fifth Schedule areas. Scheduled Areas are those notified by the President of India under Article 244(1) read with the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution, which provides for a distinct framework of governance recognising the autonomy of tribal regions. At present, Fifth Schedule areas exist in ten states: Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Rajasthan and Telangana. The PESA Act, 1996 empowers Gram Sabhas—the village assemblies—as the foundation of self-rule in these areas. Among the many powers devolved to them is the authority to take decisions on local matters, including the regulation...

MG-NREGA: A global model still waiting to be fully implemented

By Bharat Dogra When the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MG-NREGA) was introduced in India nearly two decades ago, it drew worldwide attention. The reason was evident. At a time when states across much of the world were retreating from responsibility for livelihoods and welfare, the world’s second most populous country—with nearly two-thirds of its people living in rural or semi-rural areas—committed itself to guaranteeing 100 days of employment a year to its rural population.

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...

Rollback of right to work? VB–GRAM G Bill 'dilutes' statutory employment guarantee

By A Representative The Right to Food Campaign has strongly condemned the passage of the Viksit Bharat – Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) (VB–GRAM G) Bill, 2025, describing it as a major rollback of workers’ rights and a fundamental dilution of the statutory Right to Work guaranteed under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA). In a statement, the Campaign termed the repeal of MGNREGA a “dark day for workers’ rights” and accused the government of converting a legally enforceable, demand-based employment guarantee into a centralised, discretionary welfare scheme.

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.

'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).

Making rigid distinctions between Indian and foreign 'historically untenable'

By A Representative Oral historian, filmmaker and cultural conservationist Sohail Hashmi has said that everyday practices related to attire, food and architecture in India reflect long histories of interaction and adaptation rather than rigid or exclusionary ideas of identity. He was speaking at a webinar organised by the Indian History Forum (IHF).

Search This Blog