The government announced the new National Policy on Resettlement and Rehabilitation (NPRR) 2007 on October 11. Though it heralded the policy as ground-breaking, a closer look reveals gaping holes, which may make it less than just for the displaced. For example, the new policy does not define ‘public purpose’, the much-abused term in land acquisitions, or spell out a mechanism to ensure compliance with its guidelines. It still begins with the premise that the state is the master of all land in the country.

What it does is lay more emphasis on minimizing displacement.

The new policy states that wherever possible projects should be non-displacing, while the 2003 policy only talked about least displacing projects. It adds that the promoters of projects should come up with alternative sites when making requests for acquisition . “Only the minimum area of land commensurate with the purpose of the project may be acquired.

Also as far as possible, projects may be set up on wasteland, degraded land or unirrigated land,” the policy states. It adds that before taking up a project governments should consider options that would minimize the displacement of people, the total area of land to be acquired and the acquisition of agricultural land for non-agricultural projects.

A day after the new policy was announced, the supreme court also ruled that agricultural land should be acquired only as the last option (see Intervention).

Social impact assessment
Unlike the previous policy, the 2007 policy calls for a social impact assessment (SIA) of projects that may displace a large number of people. SIA will be necessary for projects causing “involuntary displacement”—meaning displacement of people unwilling to move—of at least 400 families in plains and 200 families in hills. The policy lays down that the community to be displaced will have be to kept informed at every stage through public hearings, notices to panchayats and newspaper advertisements.

NPRR 2007 reads: “While undertaking a social impact assessment, the appropriate government shall, inter alia, take into consideration the impact that the project will have on public and community properties, assets and infrastructure; particularly, roads, public transport, drainage, sanitation, sources of safe drinking water, sources for drinking water for cattle, community ponds, grazing lands, plantations; public utilities such as post offices, fair price shops, etc; food storage godowns, electricity supply, health care facilities, schools and educational/ training facilities, places of worship, land for traditional tribal institutions, burial and cremation grounds, etc.”

An independent expert committee will be set up to examine SIA reports. State governments will appoint a commissioner and an administrator of resettlement and rehabilitation who will oversee resettlement.

M J Vijayan, convenor, Delhi Solidarity Forum, an NGO working with people’s movement, however, doubts that SIA  will be effective. “It will be difficult to find 20 families living in a cluster in the hills and tribal areas, leave alone 200 families,” he says.

Public purpose not defined
The new policy prohibits transferring land acquired for public purpose for any activity that is not for public benefit. This too can be done only with the government’s approval. If the acquired land transferred to a private company remains unutilized for five years or more, it will revert to the state. Also, if the land is sold or transferred, 80 per cent of any net unearned income shall be shared with the persons from whom the land was acquired.

Although the government has allowed acquisition of land for public purpose, it has not defined what public purpose is, points out Arundhati Dhuru of Asha Parivar, a Lucknow-based NGO. “The government can show anything from employment generation to economic development as public purpose. At the end of the day, it is only the companies that benefit and profits never trickle down to the displaced,” she adds.
 
Compensation
Unlike the earlier policy, NPRR 2007 defines a clear mechanism for determining the price of the land being acquired. It states that land will be acquired at market rate. The compensation package includes land for land wherever possible, preference of employment to at least one member of the affected family, training for jobs or self-employment, scholarships, preference to groups and cooperatives formed by affected families for allotment of contracts, wage employment and housing benefits. There are also provisions for financial assistance ranging from Rs 10,000 to Rs 25,000 for construction of cattle sheds and shops; transportation costs, temporary accommodation, and infrastructural facilities and amenities in the resettlement area. The 2003 policy only stated that it was “desirable” to provide some of these facilities.

The new policy also gives options of pension and shares in projects (see What’s new).

Faultlines
For all the emphasis on equity, the ambiguous language used in the policy document leaves enough scope for increasing the conflict between the land-acquiring agency and the affected. According to Vijayan, the policy continues to use the language of the British-enacted Land Acquisition Act of 1894. “The term eminent domain in the first paragraph of the policy shows that the state still considers itself the master of all land in India,” he says.

Then there is the problem of multiple resettlement and rehabilitation policies. Vijayan says that although NPRR 2007 is a national policy, it may not be applicable to all land-acquisition cases. “A number of states and public-sector undertakings have their own resettlement and rehabilitation policies and NPRR 2007 specifically mentions that these alternative policies may also be used. Hence the question of a national policy may get diluted,” he adds.

The new policy may not be such a good news for landless labourers. While the 2003 policy stated that a landless labourer residing in the affected area for at least three years was eligible for compensation, the new policy lays down that he be a resident for five years.

The Narmada Bachao Andolan welcomes some of the safeguards provided in the policy for its implementation, such as appointing ombudsmen to address the complaints of the displaced. It, however, questions how the government will ensure compliance with the provisions when the earlier policy with similar safeguards failed. It also raises the issue of transparency. “Cash-based compensation and the success of proposed decision of providing 20 per cent to 50 per cent of the compensation in the form of shares in the proposed project will depend on the extent of transparency employed,” it says.

The policy has also ignored the demand of civil-society groups for a tribunal to arbitrate rehabilitation and resettlement disputes. It addresses the demands of the affected to an extent, but a lot more could have been done.

Intervention Hands off agricultural land, warns supreme court

The supreme court ruled on October 12 that governments should not acquire agricultural land for private companies for non-agricultural purposes unless there is no alternative.

Pointing out that the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, stipulated that agricultural land should not be acquired when alternative land is available, the court struck down the acquisition of land by the Punjab government on behalf of International Tractors Limited.

The company had requested the state government to acquire land on its behalf from Chak Gujran village in Hoshiarpur district for starting a tractor-manufacturing unit in collaboration with French automobile maker Renault.

The Punjab government on February 15, 2002, issued a public notification under the Land Acquisition Act, stating that survey for acquisition was to begin. The rationale it gave for acquiring the land was that the factory would contribute to welfare and prosperity of the whole community.

The court ruled that before proceeding with the acquisition of land, the state must “form an opinion that the lands which are going to be acquired are not good agricultural lands”. It also noted that when a company asks the government to acquire land, the government should direct the collector to investigate “that the company has made its best endeavour to find out lands in the locality suitable for the purpose of acquisition; that the company has made all reasonable efforts to get such lands by negotiation with the persons interested therein on payment of reasonable price and such efforts have failed … that the area of land proposed to be acquired is not excessive.”

What's new

Copyright ©2004 Society for Environmental Communications