Dutta, Bikram Kumar (2014) Land Acquisition Policy in India: An effictive Inclusive Planning or Exclusive Planning Policy? REAL CORP 2014 – PLAN IT SMART! Clever Solutions for Smart Cities. Proceedings of 19th International Conference on Urban Planning, Regional Development and Information Society. pp. 337-348.
|
Text (Land Acquisition Policy in India: An effictive Inclusive Planning or Exclusive Planning Policy?)
CORP2014_19.pdf - Published Version Download (358kB) | Preview |
Abstract
India is a developing country and it requires fast space quality infrastructure development, which is the need of current times. For any development, land is required and the land belongs to the people. Government is acquiring land for “Public Purpose”. Government of India (GoI) has substantially increased its focus towards infrastructure development, over the last few decades which lead to economic growth of the country. A preliminary assessment of Five Year Plan (FYP) of Planning Commission suggests that investment in infrastructure during the Twelfth Plan (2012-17) would need to be of the order of about Rs. 4099240 crore (US $ 1025 billion) to achieve a share of 9.95% as a proportion of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This would have to be a key priority area in the Twelfth Plan in order to sustain and support the targeted growth. Based on the Eleventh Five Year Plan (2007-12), the Planning Commission has assessed the investment in infrastructure is Rs. 2054205 crore. The investment in infrastructure was likely to rise from 5.15% of GDP during the Tenth Plan to about 7.55% during the Eleventh Plan, as against a target of 7.60%. This consti¬tutes a significant shift in favour of investment in infrastructure. Acquisition of land for public purpose displaces people, forcing them to give up their home, assets and means of livelihood. The GoI recognizes the need to minimize large scale displacement to the extent possible and, where displacement is inevitable, the need to handle with utmost care and forethought issues relating to Resettlement and Rehabilitation (R&R) of Project Affected Families (PAF) and formulate R&R Policies under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and National Resettlement and Rrehabilitation Policy 2007 has been replaces by The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (RFCTLARR) Act, 2013. The ground reality differs from it. Under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 land can be acquired only for a “Public Purpose” where as asper the new The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 government will define themself the term “Public Purpose” to include projects such as mining, tourism, sports, etc. Thus virtually everything is covered. The concept of public receives its meaning or definition within the given context of economic changes and the related “developmentalism”. This means that in a case where urbanization is required to rehabilitate large labour population, the public purpose will be construction of housing or improvement of village site to accommodate this additional population. The definition of “Public Purpose” is deficient, as it has been argued that land being acquired and handed over to a private developer as ‘Public Private Partnership (PPP)’ model by development agencies for creation of public utilities be considered as public purpose. The courts have allowed for this loose interpretation by adopting a hands off attitude and consistently holding that it is entirely State to decide whether a public purpose will be met by a given acquisition, as the courts are not competent enough to into the issue of whether a purpose is a public purpose or not. Thus interpretive liberties have taken by government while operationalising the concept (Ghatak & Ghosh, 2011). Planned development in India immediately after independence, 1947, especially the growth of core sectors such as power, mining, heavy industry and irrigation, displaced at least 30 to 50 million people; only about 25% of this number was resettled and the rest either died or took the road to poverty. If urban dislocation is included, the figure would increase further (Fernandes and Paranjpye 1997:6); and all this took place in the name of the national interest and ‘for the ultimate good of all’. The importance of land policies and state control over urban development had always been a political and economic imperative. Historically it has been an instrument of exerting political controls. Today in democratic set up, it is a geographic and locational dimension of social and economic development and distribution of the resources. Land and society are profoundly linked: development and evolution of societies is expressed as corresponding to spatial organisation.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Development, Displacement, Exclusive Planning, Inclusive Planning, Land Acquisition Policy |
| Subjects: | H Social Sciences > H Social Sciences (General) H Social Sciences > HD Industries. Land use. Labor H Social Sciences > HE Transportation and Communications |
| Depositing User: | REAL CORP Administrator |
| Date Deposited: | 26 Jul 2016 10:47 |
| Last Modified: | 26 Jul 2016 10:47 |
| URI: | http://repository.corp.at/id/eprint/243 |
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |
