Wednesday, May 25, 2011

Avert New Singurs! NAC's 'land'mark reform: Pvt sector can't buy land directly!What about the Agenda of Land Acquisition, Infrastucture, SEZ, PCPIR, NMIZ, Nuclear Plants and Mining?

Avert New Singurs! NAC's 'land'mark reform: Pvt sector can't buy land directly!What about the Agenda of Land Acquisition, Infrastucture, SEZ, PCPIR, NMIZ, Nuclear Plants and Mining?

Indian Holocaust My Father`s Life and Time - SIX HUNDRED FORTY SIX

Palash Biswas

http://indianholocaustmyfatherslifeandtime.blogspot.com/


http://basantipurtimes.blogspot.com/

Land Acquisition Bill: Developers to share 80% profit with farmers
NDTV Correspondent, May 24, 2011 (Mumbai)
Rural development minister Vilasrao Deshmukh has said the government will propose a new clause in the Land Acquisition Bill to raise the bar for compensation to farmers. The new Land Acquisition Bill is meant to protect the interests of farmers.

Mr Deshmukh said the new clause proposes that 80 per cent of profits made by developing and selling the land should be passed back to the farmers. This would ensure that farmers don't end up selling land at a bargain, which is then exploited by commercial developers, Mr Deshmukh added.

Here is the complete transcript of Mr Deshmukh's interview to NDTV's Sreenivasan Jain.
Vasu: 80 per cent?

Vilasrao Deshmukh: Suppose he has made Rs1 lakh profit out of that Rs. 80,000 will go back to the farmer.


Vasu: And is this going to be in perpetuity? I mean as long as the business is viable and making profits, the developer has to return that amount?


Vilasrao Deshmukh: No, Once he has sold the land after having properly developed. Take a case like Singur. We acquired the land, or even the case of MMRDA which is the regional development authority. They develop the plot and auction it and in auction they get huge amount of money so the poor farmer who has been paid only Rs. 1 lakh rupee and you are making profit on his piece of land more than what it was paid then he should be in a position to get some share out of that.


Vasu: But will people be willing to accept that Mr Deshmukh? Will the entrepreneurs, the private sector or even government agencies accept this because that 80 per cent is a very high amount?


Vilasrao Deshmukh: That's what we have proposed and once it is provided in the act there is no question, it has to be done.        

Read more at: http://profit.ndtv.com/news/show/land-acquisition-bill-developers-to-share-80-profit-with-farmers-155942?cp

Avert New Singurs! NAC's 'land'mark reform: Pvt sector can't buy land directly!What about the Agenda of Land Acquisition, Infrastucture, SEZ, PCPIR, NMIZ, Nuclear Plants and Mining?

Against the backdrop of the farmers' stir in Greater Noida, Sonia Gandhi-led NAC today proposed that acquisition of land for development should have consent of three-fourth of village councils and provide for compensation six times the registered value.

At its meeting chaired by Gandhi here, the NAC reached a consensus on combining the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, and Resettlement and Rehabilitation Bill into a single National Development, Acquisition, Displacement and Rehabilitation Bill.

Meanwhile,Land acquisition by the Orissa government for the Rs 52,000 crore Posco steel project was progressing smoothly with 51 betel plantations being acquired in Jagatsinghpur district today.

The betel plantations were acquired at Bhuyanpala, Polanga, Bayanala and Noliasahi areas, Additional District Magistrate (Paradip) Sarojkant Choudhury said.

"Land acquisition is progressing at full steam with the cooperation of villagers," he said.

Over Rs 75 lakh was paid as compensation to the land losers and there was no opposition to the drive, he said.

After a two-day break on Saturday and Sunday, land acquisition began as members of the United Action Committee decided to cooperate with the administration following talks with senior officials on Monday.

"All land transfers for public purpose must come under the purview of this law," Aruna Roy, member NAC, told reporters here.

The various suggestions made by the NAC included the one requiring written consent of 75 per cent of the farmers and gram sabhas for acquiring their land for development projects. It implies that the rest 25 per cent will have to follow suit.

One of the recommendations to the government would be giving farmers six times the registered value of their land as compensation, Harsh Mander, another NAC member and convenor of the Working Group on Land Acquisition and Resettlement and Rehabilitation, said.

He said there was consensus in the Council on inclusion of persons working on the land into the category of project- affected persons which would make them eligible for receiving compensation.

"This would recognise the most invisible persons in the land acquisition process who lose their source of livelihood once the land is acquired," Mander said.

It what is being dubbed as a historic decision, the National Advisory Council that met on Wednesday to discuss the norms for land acquisition have announced that the recommendations ensure it is a win-win situation for all.
Averting new Singurs: NC Saxena wants yes from 70% farmers
Speaking exclusively to CNBC-TV18, NAC member NC Saxena shares that the NAC has rejected the government's proposal to allow private sector to acquire 70% land, while it has decided that "the private sector cannot buy directly if there are more than 400 farmers who are being displaced."
The recommendations also establish that farmers must get compensation that is six times of the registered value. "If the land is resold, the farmer will get 25% of difference for 20 years," says Saxena.
Below is a verbatim transcript of NC Saxena's interview with CNBC-TV18. Also watch the accompanying video.

Q: Were you able to arrive at any important decisions today as far as the Land Bill is concerned? Was there any consensus?
A: We took a historical decision of ensuring that land acquisition must become a win-win situation. Farmers who have so far been cheated in land acquisition should be the primary beneficiaries of the whole process. We will ensure this by increasing their compensation by ensuring that they also get a share in future escalation of that land prices and whenever land is acquired for industry they must be consulted. Hence, these are the three basic decisions we arrived at.
Q: So, let's talk about all of them one by one beginning with compensation. You are saying you must increase the compensation, but has the NAC been able to arrive at any formula?
A: Yes, we said that compensation should not be less than six times the registered price or the stamp value. In case the person is landless, but still dependent on that land he would get ten times the minimum wages for that area, for that state every month in his bank account.
Q: When you are saying that future shares, are you referring to land being resold and the displaced farmer actually being a part of that entire process of price escalation, enjoying the benefits of that?
A: When that land is resold then the difference in the prices, 25% of the difference will go to the original landowner and this process will continue for 20 years. So, whenever in the next 20 years that land is sold to third, fourth or fifth person, every time 25% of the difference will go to the original land owner.
Q: Will any of the state government or center for that matter actually try and acquire land for the private industry? Is that what is part of your plan?
A: We decided that in those cases where the land to be acquired is not much that is whenever the number of affected people is less than 400, in all such cases of small land acquisition there is a choice for the industry; either industry can buy directly from farmers or industry can request the state government. If they request the state government then they must pay the entire package which I just now listed. But in those cases, large projects where industry is displacing or is affecting more than 400 households, in that case they will not buy land directly from farmers, they will have to come to government. Government will acquire land for them. But they will have to bear the entire cost of not only land acquisition, but also rehabilitation and resettlement.
Q: You are saying that if more that 400 households are being displaced, industry cannot go directly to the farmers to purchase land, they have to go via the government.
A: We calculated, in all such cases, the total cost, which the industry will bear, will not be more than 1% to 2% of the project cost. So, therefore, industry would be very happy with our proposals because they would get quick possession over that land and the delay which takes place in the implementation of such projects would be avoided. It is the delay which causes the escalation in prices. If industry gets land plus gets good relations with the people, they would be very happy with our proposal.
Q: Are young saying industry should not have a problem with that, its something that they might actually like. There was also a thinking of this 70:30 ratio, the private industry would acquire 70% the government would try and help with the remaining 30% has that been ruled out now?
A: We rejected the proposal which was earlier given by government that 70% of land should be acquired by industry. In case of large projects entire land has to be acquired by government but 70% of the farmers, 70% of the project affected people have to say yes but 100% of land would be acquired by government. For a smaller project industry there is a choice, either they can directly buy land from farmers or they can come to government and government will acquire land for them.
Tags: National Advisory Council, land acquisition, NC Saxena
http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/currentaffairs/nac39s39land39markreformpvtsectorcan39tbuylanddirectly_546526.html

Keep up to date with these results:

MAINSTREAM, VOL XLVI NO 43

Exceptional Significance of Singur Movement

Amitava Mukherjee

Although there have been umpteen number of attempts to belittle the massmovement launched by the Singur Krishi Jomi Raksha Committee (SKJRC), it will certainly not be an overstatement if the Singur movement is described as one of the most important social developments in post-independence West Bengal that has the potentiality to influence the dynamics of change not just in the State but in other parts of India as well. The course of events has also brought into focus the irresponsible roles that business houses, political parties, certain individuals and media houses can play to the detriment of the interests of poor people. It is not yet verified whether Gopalkrishna Gandhi, the Governor of West Bengal, has averred in any of his reports to the President of India that both the Government of West Bengal and the Opposition led by the Trinamul Congress are adopting stands over the Singur issue with an eye to the forthcoming parliamentary elections as has been reported by a section of the vernacular media. If this is not correct there should be a denial from the Governor's office which has not yet appeared in any Kolkata based newspaper. This stand cer-tainly takes away much of the shine from the praiseworthy role that the Governor had played while bringing the CPM-led State Government and the Trinamul-led Opposition to the negotiation table. Protests over the West Bengal Government's forcible land acquisition in Singur started nearly two years back and the Trinamul Congress-led Opposition sided with the victimised farmers from that time onwards although there was no election around. Moreover resettlement on a similar quality and quantity of land is the only humane precondi-tion before eviction of a farmer from his age-old occupation. If the farmers of Singur now agitate under the banner of the SKJRC for return of theirland then it cannot be called electoral politics.

It is difficult to find fault with Mamata Banerjee's argument that it is the Left Front Government which was to be held responsible for the entire imbroglio over Singur. First, they acquired land under a law which is colonial in origin. Secondly, the government of Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee and Nirupam Sen started dishing out misinformation by advancing the argument that the acquired landcannot be returned as the law prohibits it. This was a white lie proved later during discussions at the Raj Bhavan, Kolkata. Chittotosh Mukherjee, the retired Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court who had assisted the Governor as a legal expert during the discussion, had already publicly averred that the law is no impediment if the acquired land is to be returned to the farmers. Finally, Buddhadeb and Nirupam also gave in and agreed to return the land from within the project area. Then why did they try to misguide the people of the State? Although a controversy has cropped up over the interpretation of the word 'maximum' in the agreement that the West Bengal Government had entered into with the Opposition, yet even a cursory reading of the same points out that the legal interpretation is on Mamata Banjerjee's side. Common sense suggests that the agreement had visualised the rehabilitation of a maximum number of peasants out of the land from within the Tata project site. The truth is that this govern-ment is extremely immature and is unequal to the job of arbitration and conciliation. It signed the agreement being blissfully unaware of the fact that it nullified at one stroke whatever stands the State Government had taken at different points of time. Subsequent developments pointed out that the government side was represented at the negotia-tion by some persons who did not know their own job while the Opposition had fielded some stalwarts. It is now a publicly established fact that the West Bengal Government has no credibility. This has been amply proved by the severe indictments it received from the Calcutta High Court over the Rizwan-ur Rahaman death case. But it would be mistake if only the CPM is identified as the villain. In fact all the constituents of the Left Front are of the same ilk. They had once shouted slogans against the Tatas and the Birlas. But now their Chief Minister, Buddhadeb Bhattacharya, openly declares himself as a 'dalal' (agent) of the Tatas. It only shows that after 1977 there has been a terrible dearth of credible politicians in the State. It is only natural that an unhealthy atmosphere in all walks of life has taken root in West Bengal. Otherwise how can one miss the vital point that the real issue is not industrialisation but employment. How many jobs the Tata small car project at Singur would generate and how many farmers would it uproot to make land available for the plant? If this simple calculation is done it would come to light that the Tata project hurts public purpose. In the midst of the hullabaloo of drum-beating by the West Bengal Government and the Tatas over the 'likely bonanza' the Singur car factory is set to ensure in West Bengal, one feels it necessary to ask: why are the Tatas so afraid about the disclosure of their agreement with the West Bengal Government? Is it really a fact that they originally planned to build up a stadium for motor racing, a modern form of international gambling, over the acquiredland of poor farmers? Have they really submitted a detailed master plan to the West Bengal Government containing all the details of land utilisation? The people of West Bengal have a right to know, for modern car factories hardly require so much of land. The Maruti factory at Gurgaon has come up over 350 acres of land, the Ford factory near Chennai has the same amount and even the Tata car factory at Pune has 300 acres.

•

SO there are so many unexplained areas about the Tata motor factory that the sudden advocacy of Amartya Sen in favour of it raises several questions. First, Amartya Sen has been speaking in favour of the Tata car factory in a Kolkata based media house which has already earned enough opprobrium from the general public for its one-sided approach over the Singur issue. Why is not Sen writing for other newspapers which are known for their balanced approach and would have certainly carried articles from other experts who maintain opinions different from those of Sen? For any conscientious media house this is necessary to give the debate a balanced character as some of Amartya Sen's views do not stand the test of time and ground realities. For example, his opinion that democracy precludes famines falls flat in the Indian context. India has no doubt a thriving democracy and at the same time there are famines at places like Kalahandi in Orissa.

Amartya Sen has visualised generation of employment in West Bengal over theSingur based Tata Motor factory but has not been able to give any cogent reason for such hope. It is common knowledge that capital intensive industries do not generate employment and the present-day automobile factories fall in this category. Amartya Sen should try to find out the retrenchment trend in the major automobile industries all over the world.

Amartya Sen is impatient with the physiocrats and says that till today no country has attained sufficient prosperity by means of agriculture only. But the problem with him is that he is missing the vital point that human beings are the most valuable resources of any country and the industries which gobble up human resources (for which Sen is advocating) are curses to civilisation. So far as the Singur imbroglio is concerned, the Nobel Laureate is full of inconsistencies. He says that he is not at all perturbed over the loss of agricultural land as that constitutes only a small fraction of the total amount ofland in West Bengal. But in the same breath he admits that it is a great loss to those who were unwilling to part with their land. Now two questions can be asked to him. First, can he com-pensate the loss of the unwilling farmers as he speaks in favour of the Tata industry? Secondly, if on one fine morning, Amartya Sen is forbidden by any authority to cultivate and practise the study of economics and instead forced to adopt any other profession against his will, is he prepared to accept it?

Since the assumption of power by the Left Front in West Bengal there has been a steady erosion of values and qualities of the Bengali mind in general. This is in consonance with communist culture which always differentiates between "we" and "they" ("we are 235 they are 30," in the words of Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee) and this always results in creation of sycophants and elevation of sub-standard people to high positions. But the most unfortunate thing is the creation of a parasitic class comprising writers, artistes, film personalities and journalists in the last thirty years. It is really nauseating to see these parasites trying to justify forcible occupation of poor farmers' lands in some vernacular language TV channels. The importance of the Singur movement lies elsewhere. From this has originated a platform for greater struggle of the under-privileged against the decadent culture being promoted by the forces of globalisation and the market, a point so far missed by many critics as well as supporters of themovement. The Singur agitation also witnessed the presence of a large number of street-hawkers who now feel threatened by the West Bengal Government's policy of giving licence to shopping malls. Many landless agricultural labourers also took part in the sit-in demonstration that Mamata Banerjee had undertaken near the Tata car factory site. There was a time when politicians of West Bengal had a soft corner in their heart for the poor people. The Left has jettisoned this path and now speaks for globalisation and the market forces, at least in West Bengal. The Congress, at another end, provides a pathetic example. Pranab Mukherjee, its seniormost leader from the State, was never seen anywhere nearSingur when the farmers were agitating and braving police actions. Suddenly he has appeared on the scene and is speaking for the indispensability of the Tata project.

Is the Tata project really vital for the indus-trialisation of West Bengal? In spite of the massive de-industrialisation that has taken place in West Bengal in the last thirty years, the State is still an industrialised one and has an industrial culture. So far as employment generation is concerned, the Tata car factory's contribution would amount to very little. So where is the indispensability of the project?

The problem could have been solved had the Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee Government honoured the agreement it reached in presence of the Governor in letter and spirit. The agreement called for a land-based solution and not any package which the West Bengal Government suddenly floated. If the Tatas back out from Singur, then the responsibility would lie equally with them as well as the State Government. The Tatas have failed to exhibit minimum management quality. They should have tried to feel the ground reality before reposing faith in high-sounding but empty words of the West Bengal Government. The latter has also been found to be pathetically wanting in assessing its own strength and ability.

  1. News for Singur Land Movement


    The Hindu
  2. Amid celebrations in Singur, land return decision causes concern
    3 days ago
    If required, the land acquisition act has to be amended." Becharam Manna, Banerjee's trusted man in Singur movement, said, "We are not yet aware how the ...
    Expressindia.com - 274 related articles

  3. Amid celebrations in Singur, land return decision causes concern

    22 May 2011 ... Becharam Manna, Banerjee's trusted man in Singur movement, said, "We are not yet aware how the land will be returned to the farmers. ...
    epaper.indianexpress.com/.../22_05_2011_624_003.shtml - United States - Cached

  4. Amid celebrations in Singur, land return decision causes concern ...

    22 May 2011 ... Becharam Manna, Banerjee's trusted man in Singur movement, said, "We are not yet aware how the land will be returned to the farmers. ...
    www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Amid...Singur-land.../794141/ - Cached

  5. Amid celebrations in Singur, land return decision causes concern

    ... her first day in the office has left one of the chief architects of the Singur land movementand former Land Reforms Commissioner of the state, Debobra.
    oneclick.indiatimes.com/article/0cUZfBi4O1c66?q=Mamata... - Cached

  6. Singur Nandigram Movement Pictures

    Singur Land Movement Leader Manik Das, School teacher Prafulla Majhi, Mahadeb Das, in front of club "New Ujjal Sangha" at. Bajemelia Gopalnagar. ...
    www.milansagar.com/singurLandStatus/singNandmovt10.html - Cached

  7. Singur land grab: farmers giving in? - Politics News - IBNLive

    25 Aug 2010 ... With farmers in Singur now accepting the govt's compensation for their land... which spearheaded the Singur anti-land grab movement. ...
    ibnlive.in.com/news/singur-land-grabfarmers.../129538-37.html?... - Cached

  8. The Singur Conspiracy Case-Part 1 | LeftVoice

    Truth is, till the discovery of Tapasi's dead body, news about the so-called Save the Land movement in Singur had featured several names as local leaders ...
    www.leftvoice.org/content/singur-conspiracy-case-part-1 - Cached

  9. Will start our developmental work from Singur: Mamata - The Hindu

    14 Jan 2011 ... Singur is the motherland of our land movement. I can promise that while both agriculture and industry will flourish here, unwilling farmers ...
    www.thehindu.com › News › States › Other States - Cached

  10. Singur still a hot bed of industrial possibilities - Rediff.com ...

    24 Mar 2011 ... .Singur is the motherland of our land movement. I can promise that while both agriculture and industry will flourish here, unwilling farmers ...
    www.rediff.com › Business - Cached

  11. Chronology of events(Singur Impasse) « Shanthanubh's Weblog

    18 May 2006 ... The fireband opposition leader of Bengal and now central Railway Minister,Mamata Banarjee's land movement in Singur and Nandigram raised a ...
    shanthanubh.wordpress.com/chronology-of-eventssingur-impasse/ - Cached - 

 void Agricultural Land: Jindal to India Inc
Industrialist Naveen Jindal today advised Indian companies to avoid setting up steel plants on agricultural land.

"Companies proposing to establish steel plants should avoid acquiring agricultural land for their ventures," Jindal, vice-chairman and managing director of Jindal Steel and Power Limited (JSPL), told reporters after meeting Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik here.

Stating that about 90 per cent of the area used for setting up JSPL's steel unit in Orissa's Angul was barren land, he said local people are happy as the project had little impact on agricultural activities.

Asking investors to offer maximum benefit to land owners in their project sites, Jindal said, "in all the four states of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Orissa and Haryana where we have units, the governments have been giving importance to the land owners".

Regarding obstacles in land acquisition for various projects, the JSPL MD said it is obvious that vested interests are at work.

On FDI in the steel sector, he said, "We welcome FDI in all sectors, including steel. Consumption of steel is very low in India and we should take necessary steps to raise its domestic use by increasing production substantially."

Steel majors like Posco and Mittal should set up their plants in India as it would lead to healthy competition besides raising steel production and consumption, he said.

To a question about the need for level-playing field in special economic zones (SEZ) in the steel sector, Jindal said SEZ's have "lost their charm."

Stating that his company has been taking a series of environment friendly measures, he said, "It is our duty to preserve and safeguard the eco-system."

On allegation of threat to environment in Angul where JSPL projects are located, Jindal said, "It is easy to raise fingers, but we welcome any form of inquiry."

Noida: SC/ST Commission Team Visits Bhatta-Parsaul
A 3-member team of National SC/ST Commission visited Bhatta Parsaul today, the site of clashes between police and farmers protesting for enhanced land compensation which left 4 dead, to probe charges of atrocities against dalits by the security forces.

The team, led by Commission Chairman Dr PL Punia, interacted with the alleged victims today about the May 7 incident. The process will continue for four more days.

The majority of SC residents from the two villages told the team that no atrocity had been committed on them, they said.

An NHRC team also recorded the statements of alleged victims today.
Govt Begins Talks with Medha Patkar Golibar Slum Row
On the sixth day of the social activist Medha Patkar's indefinite hunger strike protesting eviction of slumdwellers at Golibar slum area in suburban Khar, negotiations have begun on the demands put forward by the activist.

"Collector Nirmal Deshmukh, along with the senior officials of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA), came with an offer from the Chief Minister. They conveyed that Chief Secretary, Ratnakar Gaikwad, on behalf of the Chief Minister, will have discussion on the demands of the movement," Medha said.

A delegation of more than ten people from different slums, along with Medha and activist Simpreet Singh are discussing the issues with the Chief Secretary and other officials at the Collector office.

A number of slum dwellers from across Mumbai are camping outside the Collector's office.

"Most of our demands have been sort of accepted by the state government. They have said they are thinking over abolishing clause 3K and that they would focus more on self development, re-examine certain proposals and form an independent committee to look into SRA related projects," activist Vivek Pandit said.

Medha, is on fast from May 20 in Golibar slum area of Mumbai, where 140 acres of land has been handed to a private builder. The activist claims that signatures of slum dwellers were forged on letters of consent given for a proposed slum-rehabilitation project.

Medha wants the removal of Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, 1971, clause 3K that allows the state government to take over land without requiring consent of slum dwellers, investigation into all the projects sanctioned under this section and the implementation of Rajiv Awas Yojana in Mumbai.

On 20th May, when the homes were being demolished in Ganesh Krupa society, she was detained on her way to the site of demolition.

"Why did the CM not initiate a dialogue then only? We have met him two times on these issues on March 23 and then on April 5 but nothing has come out of it and demolitions continue. If there is investigations going on and he needs time then why this hurry for demolition?" Medha said.

Priya Dutta, Congress MP from the area, visited the society requesting Medha to withdraw her fast as things could be resolved through a dialogue.

Even though Medha has started facing health problems, her condition is stable.
NHRC Team Preparing Report on Bhatta-Parsaul
A team of National Human Rights Commission is firming up its report on the violence and alleged police excesses in Bhatta-Parsaul villages in Delhi suburb Greater Noida after visiting the affected areas.

The team, led by Senior Superintendent of Police from NHRC investigation division Viplav Kumar and comprising six other personnel from the section, was at the villages for six hours yesterday to probe the matter.

"They have come back and the report is being prepared. It will then be finalised by the top brass of investigation division before being submitted to the members of the rights panel," an NHRC official said.

"Pained" over violence over land acquisition and complaints of police atrocities in Greater Noida, the NHRC had on May 12 said it will send an investigation team there.

The rights body had said it has received complaints about police trespassing into villagers' houses, outraging women's dignity and mercilessly lathicharging farmers demanding more compensation for their land acquired for a road project.

Four persons, including two policemen, were killed in farmers-police clashes and firing in Bhatta-Parsaul villages on May 7. Following the incident, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi visited the area and alleged that people were burnt alive and women raped there while National Women's Commission also claimed to have received complaints from villagers about molestation of women by police and demanded a CBI probe.

The Uttar Pradesh government has, however, dismissed these allegations.
A team of National Human Rights Commission is firming up its report on the violence and alleged police excesses in Bhatta-Parsaul villages in Delhi suburb Greater Noida after visiting the affected areas.

The team, led by Senior Superintendent of Police from NHRC investigation division Viplav Kumar and comprising six other personnel from the section, was at the villages for six hours yesterday to probe the matter.

"They have come back and the report is being prepared. It will then be finalised by the top brass of investigation division before being submitted to the members of the rights panel," an NHRC official said.

"Pained" over violence over land acquisition and complaints of police atrocities in Greater Noida, the NHRC had on May 12 said it will send an investigation team there.

The rights body had said it has received complaints about police trespassing into villagers' houses, outraging women's dignity and mercilessly lathicharging farmers demanding more compensation for their land acquired for a road project.

Four persons, including two policemen, were killed in farmers-police clashes and firing in Bhatta-Parsaul villages on May 7. Following the incident, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi visited the area and alleged that people were burnt alive and women raped there while National Women's Commission also claimed to have received complaints from villagers about molestation of women by police and demanded a CBI probe.

The Uttar Pradesh government has, however, dismissed these allegations.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/Land-wars/Article1-701568.aspx

The poor need right to property

Gyanant Singh  | May 24, 2011 | Updated 07:32 IST

*

The farmers’ agitation at Bhatta Parsaul in Greater Noida has brought the land acqusition issue ba

UTILITIES
* * *
*

GET SOCIAL
*

Buzz


Farmer's unrest in places like Greater Noida and Singur call for a serious re-look not only on the law pertaining to acquisition but also on the status of the right to property in our existing Constitutional scheme.

Though an amendment to the existing law on acquisition is an immediate necessity, there is a need for a serious debate on restoration of the right to property as a fundamental right. The experience following the advent of free market economy shows that deletion of this right from the fundamental rights by the 44th amendment in 1978 with a view to further the policy of equitable distribution of wealth is now proving to the counter-productive.

Besides, the lackadaisical approach of the state in updating the law on acquisition over the years shows that it is time to put an end to politics over the rights of farmers and make courts the custodian of the right to property by making it a fundamental right. The fact that a large cross-section of similarly placed people have started taking law into their own hands indicates that there is no effective legal remedy against outdated clauses in the land acquisition law.

The right to property being a mere legal right, acquisition can be questioned only when the procedure envisaged under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is not followed or a provision is violative of some other fundamental right. Unlike in the case of laws regulating fundamental rights, courts cannot in the normal course go into contentions that the provisions in the Act were not fair, just or reasonable.

The spurt in such incidents shows that the government has failed to keep the provisions in the Land Acquisition Act in sync with the present socio-economic realities. The right to property is presently subject to the provisions in the Act. Since belated amendments cannot undo the injustice already caused, restoring the fundamental right status originally given to the right to property could be the only long term solution for poor farmers.

The right in such a scenario would not be subject to the Act but vice versa.

Though the provision pertaining to the fundamental right to property was amended a number of times before being finally deleted, it never came in way of the government's inherent power of eminent domain to acquire land for public purposes.

The 44th amendment, however, enlarged the scope of the government's right to acquire property and took away a citizen's right to directly approach the Supreme Court against an alleged infringement of his right to property.

The amendment, which came two years after the word 'socialist' was inserted in the preamble to the Constitution, was aimed at creating an egalitarian society but experience over the past few years has shown that it has harmed the poor more.

With the advent of the market driven economy, farmers have seen forced acquisition of their land for transfer to builders, industrialists and others for making profit. To make the matters worse, the authorities have more often than not invoked the urgency clause to even deny a hearing to aggrieved land owners.

With land acquisition hitting the poor, the Supreme Court in March this year (Dev Sharan v. State of U. P.) observed that there was a need for a very careful scrutiny "when little Indians lose their small property in the name of mindless acquisition at the instance of the State". A Kolkata-based activist had filed a PIL seeking restoration of the fundamental right to property for the benefit of the poor.

Though the then CJI K. G. Balakrishnan issued a notice in 2009, the petition - filed by Sanjiv Kumar Agarwal, a founder of Good Governance India Foundation - came to an abrupt end without a debate with CJI S. H. Kapadia's bench dismissing it a year later.

In a paradox of sorts, the Constituent assembly debates show that several members feared that inclusion of right to property in the fundamental rights would benefit the rich zamindars at the cost of the poor. The new economic regime seems to have proven them wrong.


http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/story/the-poor-need-right-to-property/1/139070.html

Keep up to date with these results:

Keep up to date with these results:

Did you know?

You can appeal to revenue officer in case govt acquires land for development

The recent farmers' agitation in Greater Noida over land acquisition by the government has its roots in a dispute between the farmers and the government with the former alleging that their land was sold to developers at a much higher price than what the farmers got for the same land.

If the government decides to acquire your land or plot for development, you can appeal against the order with the collector-cum-district revenue officer along with your objections. The Supreme Court passed an order in 2005 that any state government and its agencies can't take away the Fundamental Right to own a property in the country. According to the court's ruling, the land revenue collector has to dispose of the matter at the earliest. Only after disposal of the objections filed with the officer can the government carry out work on the acquired land.

The acquisition

Under the Land Acquisition Act, if your land is selected for acquisition, the collector of the land revenue department will send you a notice and also display it on the plot. After that there will be an enquiry about the land and its market value. The collector will then award compensation as per the market value.

How to file your objection

Once you receive a notice from the collector's office, you can file your objections within 30 days of receiving the notice. You can also go to court against the order.

The hearing

In case you object to the land acquisition, the collector-cum-district revenue officer will conduct an enquiry. However, before initiating the enquiry, the officer has to assess the value of the land. The verdict has to be given within a year from the date of objection.

After the hearing

After hearing your appeal, the collector can increase or decrease the monetary compensation you get in case the acquisition of land can't be reversed, such as if the land is to be used for a national project. However, the collector has the authority to annul the land acquisition notification issued earlier only if the land has been acquired by mistake.

If the compensation is not paid within a year of the government taking possession of the land, the government will have to pay 15% per annum. This penalty will be payable from the date of expiry of one year on the outstanding amount of compensation till the date of payment. However, if the collector is unable to resolve the matter, the case is referred to a court.

—Devesh Chandra Srivastava

http://www.livemint.com/2011/05/24213358/Did-you-know.html

NEW DELHI DIARY

India needs a fair law on land acquisition


Land acquisition in India has become a burning issue and a source of nationwide discontent. Agitations supporting the victims of acquisition have in the past stalled projects in West Bengal and Orissa. They threaten industrialisation, mining, rural and urban development. Projects as diverse as power plants and expressways, in locations as disparate as Maharashtra and Meghalaya, are being delayed. Land-related woes also severely impact the investment and growth climate, scaring off investors. A similar agitation by Uttar Pradesh farmers now highlights yet again how explosive the issue has become and why enactment of a fair, equitable land acquisition law cannot be put on the backburner forever.

The villain of the piece is the antiquated Act of 1894 that still governs land acquisition. It is not surprising that land owners refuse to accept the principles of compensation laid down in such an outdated piece of legislation. No political party or government is prepared to responsibly address the complex web of problems that are part of the acquisition process. Politicians rush to encourage and support farmers' agitations, but do little to tackle these problems. While they have not been able to join hands to push through the much-needed amendments to land acquisition and rehabilitation bill pending in parliament, most of them are playing activists on behalf of the farmers in Uttar Pradesh now to exploit the issue for political gains. With assembly elections due in India's largest electorate in May next year, one can easily guess why there has been a political scramble to politicise this highly sensitive issue.

The injection of politics helps only to compound issues around land acquisition. The Congress, the Bharatiya Janata Party, the Samajwadi Party and the Rashtriya Lok Dal have all ganged up against Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati with a political opportunism that is too vivid to miss. Congress leaders, eager to revive the party organisation and activate workers prior to the elections, were quick to launch a protest march from Noida to Bhatta Parsaul. Rahul Gandhi's dramatic descent to the volatile scene of agitation, his courting of arrest and airing of exaggerated statement on "mass murder and rape" by the UP police must have struck an approving chord among farmers in general who form an important vote bank.

Even members of the newly constituted UPA's Group of Ministers (GoM) on media management clearly did not feel hindered in using the official platform to laud the efforts made by Rahul to side with the agitating farmers, certifying that his midnight visit to Bhatta Parsaul was a "peaceful" one to spend a night with those who had been hurt. Now who will tell the gaffe-prone scion of the Nehru-Gandhi family and virtual heir-apparent that the political engagement with such problem needs to be constructive and responsible - qualities that were not on display in his response to the UP developments?  

It is high time that politics actively and responsibly engage with issues of land. A national land acquisition policy is the need of the hour. A market-based template is imperative to give a sense of security to those relinquishing land in a booming real estate economy. Since land prices continue to soar, they must be given a stake in the colossal fortunes made from the acquired property subsequently. Dealing directly with buyers, they will have less reason to feel short-changed on compensation or relief. The political class, therefore, should eschew their strategy of making every land-related clash an excuse for political point-scoring and focus instead on getting the amended bill through parliament.

The bill to overhaul the archaic law passed by a colonial administration as far back as the late 19th century has been gathering dust in parliamentary archives since 2007. It had been blockaded for electoral reasons by Mamata Banerjee's Trinamul Congress. But why are the other political parties allowing the stalemate to continue? In the absence of a national consensus, a couple of state governments have been improvising the terms of acquisition. Haryana, for instance, came up with a progressive way of compensating farmers. The Mayawati government too has enhanced the compensatory mechanism to benefit erstwhile owners from the development on acquired land. Yet the measures fall far short of protecting land owners' interests. It is this deficit that fuels the current protests.

The UP farmers were agitating since January for a fair compensation package and for the state to dismiss this as the work of mischief-makers and use brutal force against them is suicidal. Such protests invariably lead to a breakdown of law and order. But the tendency of the administration is often to treat them as a law and order problem and use the police to quell them. Consequently, the fundamental issues never get addressed. The incidents in Uttar Pradesh and their handling by the Mayawati government underscore this once again.

In the vortex of the current storm are two ambitious projects of the Mayawati government. When completed, the 1,047km eight-lane Ganga Expressway will connect Noida in the National Capital Region with Ballia in the eastern end of the state. On the other hand, the 165km, six-lane Yamuna Expressway between Greater Noida and Agra is a re-incarnation of the Taj Expressway originally conceived as an adjunct to the infamous Taj corridor project. Both projects require the acquisition of tens of thousands of hectares of fertile land along the meandering courses of the two mighty rivers. No government can embark on construction on this gargantuan scale without expecting opposition. Fair and just compensation is one aspect of the problem. But there are also serious environmental concerns arising from the threatened degradation of the ecology of river basins.

Amidst the tense UP situation, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh announced that the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill will be introduced in parliament soon to overturn the 1894 Act. Finalising the bill will not be easy since some constituents of the UPA have structured their politics around a negativity about land acquisition. Yet it is also indisputable that such reforms are overdue unless politicians want to do a Singur everywhere to serve their vested interests. People are demanding market-linked prices for land as old forms of acquisition by government are increasingly seen as land grabs and resource theft.

What India needs, therefore, is a national land legislation that is fair, just and primarily protective of the interests of millions of vulnerable farmers. The effects of whatever law is finalised will be so far-reaching that it should evolve through a process of wide political participation and consultation.


http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=436689&version=1&template_id=40&parent_id=22

Singur Tata Nano controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.

Tata Nano Singur Controversy refers to the controversy generated by the Nano factory of Tata Motors at Singur in Hooghly district, West Bengal, India.

Singur gained international media attention since Tata Motors started constructing a factory to manufacture their $2,500 car, the Tata Nano at Singur. The small car was scheduled to roll out of the factory by 2008.[1]

The state government of West Bengal facilitated the controversy by using an old rule to conduct an eminent domain takeover of 997 acres of farmland to have Tata build its factory.[2] The rule is meant for public improvement projects, and the West Bengal government wanted Tata to build in its state. Opponents included displaced farmers and land-rights people.

Contents

 [hide]

[edit]Small car manufacturing facility

The choice of Singur was made by the company among six sites offered by the state government. The project faced massive opposition from displaced farmers. The unwilling farmers were given political support by West Bengal's opposition leader Mamata Banerjee. Banerjee's "Save Farmland" movement was supported by celebrity environmental activists like Medha Patkar, Anuradha Talwar and Arundhati Roy. Banerjee's movement against displacement of farmers was also supported by several Kolkata based intellectuals like Aparna Sen, Kaushik Sen, Shaonli Mitra and Suvaprasanna. Ultra left activists also shared the platform with Banerjee's Trinamool Party. The Tatas finally decided to move out of Singur on 3 October 2008. Ratan Tata blamed violence by Banerjee and her supporters for the pullout decision. On 7 October 2008, the Tatas announced that they would be setting up the Tata Nano plant in Sanand, Gujarat.

[edit]Perspective of those who favour the Tata project

In the 1950s the Indian state of West Bengal was one of the most industrialized states in the country. Bidhan Roy, its first chief minister, founded large industrial plants in Durgapur, Asansol, Kalyani, Howrah and Calcutta proper. In the 1960s and 1970s, disruptions by theBangladesh War, the Naxal movement and militant trade unionism by leftist parties led by Jyoti Basu slowed down industrial development. Consequently other states such as Maharashtra, Gujarat, Punjab, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka attracted industrial investment and experienced job growth.

The rapid rise in the population of West Bengal has not been accompanied by significant economic growth. Key indicators such asunemployment rates, poverty rates, infant mortality rates, job growth rates, per capita income, mobile phone penetration rates lag the more industrialised states of India. Local politicians gained power by promising agricultural land to landless farmers, but given West Bengal's population density, the land-holdings are small and the yields are insufficient to sustain poor families. While the shift from agriculture to industrial jobs requires re-training, given India's economic growth, it provides an opportunity for earning higher income.

Several states have proposed to offer land to Tata Motors if they abandon the project in Singur.

The people staying in the proposed land were forced to evacuate by the government. The compensation given was considered inadequate and the new housing facilities offered were delayed. This led to the protest of the peasants backed by opposition political parties, who thought it would be a good opportunity to end the communist rule of Bengal.

The company has made substantial promises. According to their claims, Singur would become a mini-auto city and approximately 70 vendors would set up shop along with the factory. The total investment planned is to the tune of Rs 1,000 crore.[3] The project had, however, generated controversy right from the start, particularly on the question of state acquisition of fertile agricultural land for private enterprises.

[edit]The land acquisition controversy

On 23 September 2008, Tatas decided to leave Singur in West Bengal, the decision is reported to have been made by the Tata management and the Bengal government had been informed. On 3 October it became official that TATA will leave Singur (WB) when Ratan Tata announced it in a press conference in Kolkata.

While the ruling party has gone all out[4] for acquisition of 997 acres (404 ha)[2] of multi-crop land required for the car factory, questions have been raised about the party forcible acquisition which was made under the colonial Land Acquisition Act of 1894.[2] Others say the provisions of this act were allegedly not been met.[5]

The law has provisions for state taking over privately held land for public purposes but not for developing private businesses. The illegality of the acquisition has been substantially conceded by the Kolkata High Court.

The Tata Motors site is the most fertile one in the whole of the Singur, and the Singur block, in turn, is among the most highly fertile in West Bengal. Consequently, almost the entire local population depends on agriculture with approximately 15000 making their livelihood directly from it.[6] With the number of direct jobs to be created no more than about 1,000, many of which are expected to go to outsiders, the local populace feel understandably threatened for their livelihood.[7] Environmental degradation is also feared.

Chief protesters include the opposition parties spearheaded by the Trinamool Congress under Mamata Banerjee and Socialist Unity Centre of India. The movement has received widespread support from civil rights and human rights groups, legal bodies, social activists like Medha Patkar and Anuradha Talwar, Booker prize-winning author Arundhati Roy and Magsaysay and Jnanpith Award-winning author Mahasweta Devi.[8] Other intellectuals, writers like the poet Joy Goswami, artists like Suvaprasanna, theatre and film personalities like Saonli Mitra,Aparna Sen etc. have pitched in. The state police force has been used to restrict their access to the area.[9] The Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen has on the other hand appeared to defend the decision to set up the factory. He however opposed forcible acquisition of land.[3]

The protesters have been trenchantly attacked, verbally by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI(M)) leaders and physically by the party's supporters. Benoy Konar, member of the party's state committee, famously declared that protesting intellectuals would be greeted by women supporters of the party by baring their behinds [4].

Preliminary surveys by officials of the state and Tata Motors faced protests, and manhandling on one occasion, from the villagers organized under the Save Singur Farmland Committee with Trinamool Congress forming its chief component.[10] It is reported that Naxalite elements hold sway over the direction the agitation takes and the Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee takes no decisions without consulting them.[11]

The state government imposed the prohibitory Section 144 of the Indian Penal Code for initially a month and then extended it indefinitely. The imposition has been declared illegal by the Kolkata High Court [12]

While landless peasants and share-croppers fear losing out entirely, sections of the locals, particularly those owing allegiance to the CPI(M) have welcomed the factory. These count chiefly among the owners of bigger portions of the land even as discrimination in the compensation has been alleged.[13]

A section of those promised jobs at the factory have boycotted classes while training in protest against the alleged going back on the promise.[14]

In the 2011 state assembly elections, while the sitting Trinamool Congress MLA, Rabindranath Bhattacharya retained the Singur seat,Becharam Manna, the convener of Krishi Jami Raksha Samiti, won the adjoining Haripal seat [15] [16]

[edit]Fencing off the land

The land earmarked for the project was taken control of by the state administration amidst protests and fencing off commenced on December 1, 2006. Mamata Banerjee, who was prevented from entering Singur by the state police, called a statewide bandh in protest while legislators belonging to her party turned violent in the legislative assembly causing damage to furniture. [5] Later, she went on a 25-day hunger strike[6].During this period she presented affidavits of farmers apparently unwilling to part with their land.[17]

The fenced off area has been regularly guarded, besides large contingents of policemen, by cadres of the CPI(M) party. They were accused of the multiple rape followed by burning to death of teenage villager Tapasi Malik who was active in the protests, on December 18, 2006.[18]Negligence and political interference in the probe into her death have been alleged.[19] Later, CPI(M) activist Debu Malik and based on his statement, CPI(M) zonal committee secretary Suhrid Dutta were arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation in connection with the crime.[20]

Intermittent attacks by villagers have since continued on the fence. However, continuing agitations against the project appeared to have proved ineffective and a farmer who lost land committed suicide[21]

On the other hand the pro-factory villagers siding with the CPI(M) have made accusations against the Naxalite faction of the 'Save Singur Farmland Committee' of threats and violence against them.[22]

[edit]Construction of plant

Tatas ceremonially initiated the construction of the plant on 21 January 2007.[23] The Tata Group announced on October 3, 2008 that they are pulling out of Singur due to the political unrest and agitation by the Trinamool Congress against the construction of the plant.

[edit]Procedural lacunae

Other aspects of the process of setting up the factory that have come under severe criticism are the government's secrecy on the details of the deal and the chief minister's furnishing of false information, including in the legislative assembly Vidhan Sabha. In particular, the concessions being given to Tata Motors have not been publicly revealed. The falsehoods of the chief minister chiefly pertain to claims made by him of having acquired 912 acres (3.69 km2) [24] through voluntary consent of the owners without the use of force.

The Kolkata High Court declared the acquisition prima facie legal.[25] The air seemed to have cleared somewhat when the High Court ordered the state government to submit correct figures following which an affidavit but was not satisfied with the result [7]. In a fresh affidavit filed later in June 2007, the government admitted to 30 per cent of the land was acquired from farmers without consent.[26] The affidavit remains unclear on whether the lack of consent is based on insufficiency of the compensation or refusal to sell altogether.[27]

[edit]Business houses' role

The critics of the government's industrialization policy have argued on the other hand that while India is moving towards a "free market" economy, government has been acting as a broker for the private sector by forcing private citizens to give up their property at throw away prices.[who?]

[edit]Tata pulls out

On October 3, 2008, after a brief meeting with the Chief Minister, Mr. Ratan Tata declared his decision to move the Nano Project out of West Bengal. Mr. Tata specifically mentioned his frustration with the opposition movement at Singur Project led by Trinamool Congress chief Ms. Mamata Banerjee. Ms Banerjee responded by referring to actions by Tatas and the state government.[28][29]

The CM of Gujarat, Narendra Modi then sent an SMS to Mr. Ratan Tata, which simply said "Suswagatham", to persuade him to relocate the Nano factory to Gujarat.[30]

It took 14 months to build a new factory in Sanand, Gujarat compared with 28 months for the Singur factory.[31]

[edit]References

  1. ^ The Hindu Business Line, 26 November 2006
  2. ^ a b c The Economist August 30, 2008 edition. U.S. Edition. "Nano wars". Page 63.
  3. ^ The Hindu Business Line, 13 December 2006
  4. ^ The Telegraph 14 October 2006
  5. ^ The Business Standard
  6. ^ Countercurrents.org, 30 December 2006 Headline Singur
  7. ^ Tehelka Mar 03, 2007
  8. ^ doccentre.net Report on Public Hearing
  9. ^ The Times of India December 8, 2007: Do you need a visa to enter Bengal?
  10. ^ The Indian Express 15 January 2007
  11. ^ Banerjee doesn't take decisions without Naxal elements' OK:The Indian Express August 31
  12. ^ The Times of India February 15, 2007
  13. ^ The Telegraph December 10, 2006
  14. ^ The Telegraph 23 June, 2007 Job cry from Tata trainees
  15. ^ "Haripal". Assembly Elections May 2011 Results. Election Commission of India. Retrieved 2011-05-19.
  16. ^ "Singur". Assembly Elections May 2011 Results. Election Commission of India. Retrieved 2011-05-19.
  17. ^ The Statesman 23 December 2006
  18. ^ The Statesman 19 December 2007
  19. ^ The Statesman 22 January 2007
  20. ^ The Indian Express 29 June 2007 CPM local boss arrested for Singur girl's murder
  21. ^ The Indian Express 26 May 2007
  22. ^ DNA - India - 'Save Singur' turns sour - Daily News & Analysis
  23. ^ The Telegraph 22 January 2007
  24. ^ The Indian Express November 24, 2006
  25. ^ The India Daily February 24 2007 Calcutta High Court says Singur land acquisition appears illegal -all eyes now on communists in West Bengal
  26. ^ IBN 10 June 2007: 30 pc Singur farmers not compensated
  27. ^ The Times of India 8 June 2007: State files Singur affidavit
  28. ^ "Tata pulls out of Singur, blames Trinamool stir - The Financial Express". www.financialexpress.com. Retrieved 2009-03-10.
  29. ^ "If Tata pulls out, Trinamool will be solely responsible: CM". Chennai, India: www.hindu.com. 28 September 2008. Retrieved 2009-03-10.
  30. ^ [1]
  31. ^ [2]


Searches related to Land Acquisition India

land acquisition 2009

india property

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Welcom

Website counter

Census 2010

Followers

Blog Archive

Contributors