Farmer organisations on Tuesday raised concerns over Bihar's proposed 11 satellite township projects and the Bihar City Development Act, 2026, alleging that large-scale conversion of agricultural land without adequate safeguards could affect farmers' land rights, livelihoods and social security.
Addressing a press conference in Patna, Bharatiya Kisan Union national spokesperson Rakesh Tikait and farmer leader Dinesh Singh said farmers were not opposed to urban development but would resist any model in which development came at the cost of agricultural land and the economic security of farming families.
The proposed satellite townships are planned in Patna, Darbhanga, Chhapra, Sonpur, Bhagalpur, Muzaffarpur, Gaya, Purnea, Sitamarhi, Munger and Saharsa. Farmer representatives said large tracts of land were being identified for the projects and demanded that details of the proposed land acquisition or pooling, master plans and land-use patterns be made public.
The farmers also raised questions about the relationship between the Bihar City Development Act, 2026, and the safeguards provided under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and the Bihar land acquisition rules. They sought clarity on whether safeguards relating to social impact assessment, consent, compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement would continue to apply to land brought under the new urban development framework.
"Development cannot mean compromising the land, livelihood and rights of farmers," the farmer representatives said, arguing that agricultural land was not merely an economic asset but also the basis of livelihood and social security for rural families.
A major concern raised at the press conference was the proposed land-pooling mechanism. Under this model, farmers contribute land for planned development and a portion of the developed land is returned to the original landowners. Farmer organisations questioned the basis on which the returned land would be valued and allocated. They asked where the land would be located, what its quality would be, what legal rights the original landowners would retain and whether farmers would receive a share in the increase in land value resulting from urban development.
"The farmer should not be treated merely as a land provider. He must be a genuine partner in the development process," the representatives said.
They also questioned the proposed land-use distribution under the township planning framework. According to the material presented at the press conference, up to 22 per cent of the pooled land could be earmarked for roads, 15 per cent for sale by the designated planning authority or an eligible developer, 5 per cent for parks, playgrounds, gardens, schools and hospitals, 3 per cent for housing for economically weaker sections, and 55 per cent for return to landowners.
The farmer organisations pointed out that these percentages could change depending on the financial viability of individual projects. This, they said, made it necessary to provide farmers with a clear legal formula for valuation, compensation and the return of developed land. They asked what the farmer would actually receive for his land, how the current market value would be determined, who would benefit from future appreciation in land prices and what safeguards would ensure a stable livelihood for families once agricultural land was brought into urban development.
The organisations also questioned the adequacy of social impact assessment and social audit mechanisms before large-scale conversion of agricultural land. They argued that the impact of urbanisation could not be assessed only in terms of land value. Any assessment, they said, should cover the number of affected families, agricultural labourers, irrigation systems, water sources, local markets and the wider rural economy. They also sought clarity on the rehabilitation and resettlement of families whose livelihoods depend on the affected land.
"A farmer cannot be considered rehabilitated merely because he has been given a cheque," the representatives said. They argued that the loss of agricultural land could affect not only landowners but also sharecroppers, agricultural labourers and small businesses dependent on the rural economy.
Questions were also raised over the proposed structure and functioning of the Bihar City Development Authority. The farmer organisations questioned the extent of representation of elected representatives, farmers, independent experts and local communities in the proposed institutional framework. They argued that an authority entrusted with decisions relating to large areas of land, urban planning, development and land use should have mechanisms for public participation and accountability. They also expressed concern over provisions relating to dispute resolution and the concentration of decision-making powers, calling for greater institutional safeguards and transparency.
The farmer representatives said Bihar certainly needed planned urban development, but argued that this should not come at the expense of fertile agricultural land. They called for greater investment in smart villages, agriculture, irrigation, rural industries, education, healthcare and local employment. They warned that selling agricultural land could provide a family with a large one-time payment but could also eliminate a regular source of livelihood. The experience of the Covid-19 pandemic, they said, had demonstrated the importance of villages and agricultural land as a source of economic and social security when urban employment collapsed. They also questioned whether the proposed townships would primarily benefit farmers and local communities or investors and real-estate interests.
The organisations demanded that the Bihar government immediately review the Bihar City Development Act, 2026, and withdraw provisions they consider detrimental to farmers' interests. They sought mandatory social impact assessments and social audits for every satellite township project and demanded that farmer-protection provisions under the 2013 land acquisition law should not be diluted. They also called for legally enforceable guarantees on the land, value and rights to be returned to farmers under the land-pooling system. A transparent valuation mechanism, they said, was necessary to address the gap between circle rates and actual market values. The organisations further demanded that the government make public all details relating to the proposed satellite townships, including the area involved, master plans and proposed land use.
Raising the slogan "Our land, government ownership — what kind of development right is this?", the organisations said that if their demands were not addressed within a month, the United Kisan Morcha and Bihar-based farmer organisations would organise a farmers' march in Patna in November and would continue their protest until the disputed provisions were withdrawn.
"Farmers are not opposed to development. They want a model in which their land, livelihood and rights remain protected," the representatives said, adding that sustainable development in Bihar would be possible only when agriculture and villages remained economically viable.
—
*Senior journalist
Comments