Tiger80 Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 Anna is back and this time against Modi.Kejriwal also joined him in agitation .It clearly look that AAP now want to spread itself all over India.
asterix Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 Anna wants to ride over Kejri's popularity... :giggle:
Tiger80 Posted February 24, 2015 Author Posted February 24, 2015 Anna wants to ride over Kejri's popularity... :giggle: I think this time Kejri want's to become messiah of Kissans so that AAP can spread its popularity in villages
Tiger80 Posted February 24, 2015 Author Posted February 24, 2015 for what? against Land acqusition act
Khalpat Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 Wasn't this Act brought into parliament long back by UPA-2. If I remember correctly all the political parties supported it at that time. What are the changes Modi government has done in the act that all opposition parties are so against now? As for AAP supporting this, I am fine with their concern on farmers but do they have any plan or solution or any changes which they want in this ordinance so that government can go ahead with infrastructure projects without acquiring lands. They are a political party now, so we expect to know as to what clause they are against and what is their advice to government for the changes.
Tiger80 Posted February 24, 2015 Author Posted February 24, 2015 Wasn't this Act brought into parliament long back by UPA-2. If I remember correctly all the political parties supported it at that time. What are the changes Modi government has done in the act that all opposition parties are so against now? As for AAP supporting this, I am fine with their concern on farmers but do they have any plan or solution or any changes which they want in this ordinance so that government can go ahead with infrastructure projects without acquiring lands. They are a political party now, so we expect to know as to what clause they are against and what is their advice to government for the changes. Here is a look at the controversial changes: The original Act requires the consent of 70 per cent of farmers in the area where land is to be acquired for Public-Private Partnership projects. The new clause exempts five categories from this rule - industrial corridors, public-private partnership projects, rural infrastructure, affordable housing and defence. In the earlier law, a social impact assessment was mandatory but the ordinance exempts the five categories from this requirement. The existing law says land will be returned to the original owner if it is unused for five years. The proposed amendment scraps the five-year limit and says the land will be returned if it is unused for the period specified for the project. The current law has a provision to penalise bureaucrats for any violations. The amended clause says government sanction will be required to prosecute civil servants. The earlier ordinance had excluded private hospitals and private educational institutions from the list of infrastructure projects. The amended clause includes them, which allows private companies to buy land at concessional rates. http://www.ndtv.com/cheat-sheet/5-reasons-why-governments-land-ordinance-is-controversial-741754
randomGuy Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 Wasn't this Act brought into parliament long back by UPA-2. If I remember correctly all the political parties supported it at that time. What are the changes Modi government has done in the act that all opposition parties are so against now? As for AAP supporting this, I am fine with their concern on farmers but do they have any plan or solution or any changes which they want in this ordinance so that government can go ahead with infrastructure projects without acquiring lands. They are a political party now, so we expect to know as to what clause they are against and what is their advice to government for the changes. Politics hai. Am disappointed in Kejri. And anna said no political figure will be allowed to sit on stage, so how come arvind sat next to him on stage?
Tiger80 Posted February 24, 2015 Author Posted February 24, 2015 Politics hai. Am disappointed in Kejri. And anna said no political figure will be allowed to sit on stage' date=' so how come arvind sat next to him on stage?[/quote'] Vaiko too was sitting Anna
Tapioca Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 Here is a look at the controversial changes: The original Act requires the consent of 70 per cent of farmers in the area where land is to be acquired for Public-Private Partnership projects. The new clause exempts five categories from this rule - industrial corridors, public-private partnership projects, rural infrastructure, affordable housing and defence. In the earlier law, a social impact assessment was mandatory but the ordinance exempts the five categories from this requirement. The existing law says land will be returned to the original owner if it is unused for five years. The proposed amendment scraps the five-year limit and says the land will be returned if it is unused for the period specified for the project. The current law has a provision to penalise bureaucrats for any violations. The amended clause says government sanction will be required to prosecute civil servants. The earlier ordinance had excluded private hospitals and private educational institutions from the list of infrastructure projects. The amended clause includes them, which allows private companies to buy land at concessional rates. http://www.ndtv.com/cheat-sheet/5-re...versial-741754 These looks a massively anti-farmer legislation. No wonder they want to push it through without bringing it to the spotlight in the parliament.
The Outsider Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 These looks a massively anti-farmer legislation. No wonder they want to push it through without bringing it to the spotlight in the parliament. It is one of the most regressive piece of legislation in recent times. The previous bill was passed after 2 years of consensus building across all spectrums. The updated version simply does away with any right of ownership and social impacts of land acquisition. Ironically, this is being done in the name of capitalism, where right to ownership is paramount. Given the ramifications of the bill, I have doubts it can make it through a joint session either. If it does, there are going to be constant dharnas and agitations over the next few years whenever a major piece of land is bullied away from their owners.
randomGuy Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 These looks a massively anti-farmer legislation. No wonder they want to push it through without bringing it to the spotlight in the parliament. It is one of the most regressive piece of legislation in recent times. The previous bill was passed after 2 years of consensus building across all spectrums. The updated version simply does away with any right of ownership and social impacts of land acquisition. Ironically, this is being done in the name of capitalism, where right to ownership is paramount. Given the ramifications of the bill, I have doubts it can make it through a joint session either. If it does, there are going to be constant dharnas and agitations over the next few years whenever a major piece of land is bullied away from their owners. While there can be amendments in the bill, I agree with the thinking behind it. Land owners who got compensated in Haryana as Delhi expanded got huge sums of money. many become lazy, simply waste it on alcohol etc. also, new law is supposed to fast track land acquisition, removing bottlenecks in growth.. waise bhi we need to get people out of farming n move to tier2 tier3 cities. More manufacturing n services jobs, less agricultural jobs is the focus.
seedhi Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 This is all posturing.. the amendment to the land act (with a few token changes) will pass the joint session with the help of some regional parties. In its current form the Land Act makes land acquisition impossible. Prosecuting civil servants without sanction.. lol .. no bureaucrat will ever sign anything related to land acquisition. Social impact assessment is going to take several years - increasing the opportunity cost for industry manifold. Forget private industry, even irrigation projects, roads, power lines etc cannot practically be undertaken under this act. The regional parties (BJD, ADMK, TDP, TRS, even TMC) know all of this and they need the changes for the states they govern. All they need is a few crumbs - probably adding a reasonable consent clause - to fall in line.
Khalpat Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 This is all posturing.. the amendment to the land act (with a few token changes) will pass the joint session with the help of some regional parties. In its current form the Land Act makes land acquisition impossible. Prosecuting civil servants without sanction.. lol .. no bureaucrat will ever sign anything related to land acquisition. Social impact assessment is going to take several years - increasing the opportunity cost for industry manifold. Forget private industry, even irrigation projects, roads, power lines etc cannot practically be undertaken under this act. The regional parties (BJD, ADMK, TDP, TRS, even TMC) know all of this and they need the changes for the states they govern. All they need is a few crumbs - probably adding a reasonable consent clause - to fall in line. Yes, I also think they will at the max make some changes or withdraw this part and get the bill passed : The original Act requires the consent of 70 per cent of farmers in the area where land is to be acquired for Public-Private Partnership projects. The new clause exempts five categories from this rule - industrial corridors, public-private partnership projects, rural infrastructure, affordable housing and defence.
seedhi Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 For those who are crowing about the consensus when the act was passed : the fact is that it has been found since then that it is unworkable. It needs these changes and the Congress state govts have also conveyed the same. When Congress-ruled states demanded these very changes Leading the onslaught on the NDA over amendments to the land acquisition Act, the Congress may find it hard to justify how some states it ruled had urged the government to bring changes in the Act last year. On June 27, then rural development minister Nitin Gadkari held a meeting of states for their views on changes needed. According to ministry documents, the most crucial proposal — of removing the consent clause from PPP projects or bringing it down 50 per cent — was pushed by Haryana (then Congress-ruled) and Kerala (ruled by Congress-led UDF), besides some other states. “Under PPP projects, ownership of lands vests with the government. Therefore, the consent requirement should be done away with or it should be brought down to 50 per cent,” Haryana’s suggestion read. Kerala suggested, “Obtaining consent of landowners prior to preliminary notification is a herculean task as the identification of landowners at such initial stages may pose a problem.” The ministry’s suggestions, based on the meeting, were sent to the Prime Minister and were phrased largely as per the demands expressed by Congress-ruled states. Assam, Himachal Pradesh and Haryana (now under a BJP government) said the scope of the definition of affected family was too broad. Assam and Maharashtra (then under a Congress-NCP regime) opposed the retrospective clause, too. The former said it needed modification and the latter said it needed clarity so that any ongoing acquisition process under the old Act is “protected” while compensation is given as per the new Act. On social impact assessment, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra and Manipur (all then Congress-ruled) demanded the process be restricted to large projects. Kerala, which felt the “urgency clause” was too restrictive, also demanded states be “allowed to frame state-specific Acts regarding land acquisition”. Manipur said the 1894 Act should continue. The concerns, also shared by some BJP-ruled states, were sent to the PM in July. “The consent clause should be removed from PPP projects. Alternatively, consent requirement may be brought down to 50 percent,” the ministry suggested, while also proposing doing away with the SIA study and confining it to large or PPP projects. The ministry’s justification for amending the retrospective clause was that because of this clause, payment of compensation as per the new Act leads to an “increased burden on state exchequer”, and to litigation. It suggested narrowing the scope of people eligible to receive rehabilitation and resettlement benefits. In 2011, then Maharashtra CM Prithviraj Chavan had written to UPA’s rural development minister Jairam Ramesh demanding changes to the draft bill, including removal of the 80-per-cent-consent clause when land is acquired for industrial and urbanisation. http://indianexpress.com/article/india/politics/when-cong-ruled-states-demanded-these-very-changes/99/
asterix Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 NDA has to be very careful and act smartly... Can't allow a perception to be created that NDA is anti-farmer/poor.... I'm amazed that Doval is unable to find out damning cases against majority of the opposition... He's been focussiing too much on TMC...
Tapioca Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 Yes, I also think they will at the max make some changes or withdraw this part and get the bill passed : The original Act requires the consent of 70 per cent of farmers in the area where land is to be acquired for Public-Private Partnership projects. The new clause exempts five categories from this rule - industrial corridors, public-private partnership projects, rural infrastructure, affordable housing and defence. The last one about concessions for private hospitals and private educational institutions also looks likely to be exploited.
The Outsider Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 While there can be amendments in the bill, I agree with the thinking behind it. Land owners who got compensated in Haryana as Delhi expanded got huge sums of money. many become lazy, simply waste it on alcohol etc. also, new law is supposed to fast track land acquisition, removing bottlenecks in growth.. waise bhi we need to get people out of farming n move to tier2 tier3 cities. More manufacturing n services jobs, less agricultural jobs is the focus. What if I don't want to move? Who is the government to decide what I do with my land? Yes, in extreme circumstances involving national security it is fine, but certainly not in the name of crony capitalism . The last one about concessions for private hospitals and private educational institutions also looks likely to be exploited. It's beyond ridiculous. In effect, the government can force me to part ways with land which has been ours for generations, so that Amity or Fortis can set up shop there.
randomGuy Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 What if I don't want to move? Who is the government to decide what I do with my land? Yes, in extreme circumstances involving national security it is fine, but certainly not in the name of crony capitalism . It's beyond ridiculous. In effect, the government can force me to part ways with land which has been ours for generations, so that Amity or Fortis can set up shop there. National interest takes precedence over personal wishes of not wanting to move n keep block acres of land. five categories for which this rule applies are - industrial corridors, public-private partnership projects, rural infrastructure, affordable housing and defence..
Recommended Posts