Tiger80 Posted February 25, 2015 Author 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. What about roads, rail, irrgation prjoect, power plant, hospitals schools.Development of any kind require land which India have scarce
varun 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' date=' in extreme circumstances involving national security it is fine, but certainly not in the name of crony capitalism .[/quote'] It is the same in the US as well by the way. Any land can be taken for the 'public good', and 'fair compensation' provided. The UK is even worse, as you never own any land and only lease it.
Tiger80 Posted February 25, 2015 Author Posted February 25, 2015 I think best solution is give farmers lumpsum and pay them rent which increases by 10% per annum. In this way they will money to thier living
varun Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 If I was a farmer, and not too interested in farming, I think this is a good deal. I get 4 times the market price, and get to keep 20% of developed land. Say I have 5 acres of land and the price is 1 crore for 1 acre, then I could sell 4 acres for 16 crores, and get to keep 1 acre of developed property. Heck just renting out this 1 acre of developed property I could make more than I do with farming. The other opposition to this bill regarding taking of non-barren multi-crop land is absurd as 85-90% of india is non-barren multi-crop land.
The Outsider Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 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' date=' public-private partnership projects, rural infrastructure, affordable housing and defence..[/quote'] National interest is specific things like laying down power lines, railway tracks etc. not any odd bullcrap like industrial corridors. You want to set up an industry, go and find willing sellers not bulldoze on to someone else's property. What kind of capitalism is this?
randomGuy Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 If I was a farmer, and not too interested in farming, I think this is a good deal. I get 4 times the market price, and get to keep 20% of developed land. Say I have 5 acres of land and the price is 1 crore for 1 acre, then I could sell 4 acres for 16 crores, and get to keep 1 acre of developed property. Heck just renting out this 1 acre of developed property I could make more than I do with farming. The other opposition to this bill regarding taking of non-barren multi-crop land is absurd as 85-90% of india is non-barren multi-crop land. have seen such land owners who got crores as compensation and are doing ayyashi now buying expensive cars, daaru... Industrialist are doing real productive work in India and creating jobs whereas these land owners mostly employ n exploit poor laborers to do the farming in their land n they just pocket the profit from crop yield.
The Outsider Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 It is the same in the US as well by the way. Any land can be taken for the 'public good'' date=' and 'fair compensation' provided. The UK is even worse, as you never own any land and only lease it.[/quote'] Public good will be setting up things like power lines, railway tracks etc. I am not aware of the US government taking over land to build private schools, hospitals, and industries.
The Outsider Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 If I was a farmer, and not too interested in farming, I think this is a good deal. I get 4 times the market price, and get to keep 20% of developed land. Say I have 5 acres of land and the price is 1 crore for 1 acre, then I could sell 4 acres for 16 crores, and get to keep 1 acre of developed property. Heck just renting out this 1 acre of developed property I could make more than I do with farming. The other opposition to this bill regarding taking of non-barren multi-crop land is absurd as 85-90% of india is non-barren multi-crop land. Which is fine. I have nothing against willing sales between a buyer and seller whoever they maybe.
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. also sometimes, the person is reluctant to explore other opportunities for him n his children due to inertia n lack of knowledge like a kuwen ka mendak. this is also why I am against requiring consent from these land owners for developmental projects.
randomGuy Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 and again, WTH is khujli's party doing protesting against this bill? These posers got the mandate to govern delhi, not obstruct development, I am truly disappointed
The Outsider Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 also sometimes' date=' the person is reluctant to explore other opportunities for him n his children due to inertia n lack of knowledge like a kuwen ka mendak. this is also why I am against requiring consent from these land owners for developmental projects.[/quote'] On one hand you are saying most of these guys become wastrels, and on the other hand you want more of these kunwe ke mendhak to come out. You're confused.
randomGuy Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 On one hand you are saying most of these guys become wastrels' date=' and on the other hand you want more of these kunwe ke mendhak to come out. You're confused.[/quote'] Those who do not want to accept the compensation are sometimes kunwe ke mendhak.
varun Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 Public good will be setting up things like power lines' date=' railway tracks etc. I am not aware of the US government taking over land to build private schools, hospitals, and industries.[/quote'] The problem is that the government doesn't have enough funds to build massive public infrastructure on its own and has to gown the PPP route. And the private players would probably want to recoup their costs by building malls etc on the land.
The Outsider Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 Those who do not want to accept the compensation are sometimes kunwe ke mendhak. According to you these mendhak become wastrels once they are out, so isn't it better they stay in the kunwa?
The Outsider Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 The problem is that the government doesn't have enough funds to build massive public infrastructure on its own and has to gown the PPP route. And the private players would probably want to recoup their costs by building malls etc on the land. Then go slow with the vikas, make it more organic. On one hand you want capitalism and argue for lesser government in business, and on the other the government runs an enterprise to acquire land for businesses.
zen Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 Industrialist are doing real productive work in India and creating jobs whereas these land owners mostly employ n exploit poor laborers to do the farming in their land n they just pocket the profit from crop yield. The goal of a business is to make a profit. Tomorrow, if robots are needed to make the products more competitive, business will replace people with machines. See how manufacturing moved to China and Mexico from some of the developed countries. These mega companies are doing exactly what you accuse the land owners to be doing - exploiting resources in relatively poor countries and creaming profits Ind is actually in a good position right now. What it should do is go for what is coming next rather than just blindly ape west. Before embarking on development initiatives, Ind should first understand properly what is suitable for it Coming back to the land bill, to be frank I have not read the fine prints, but any move should involve all the stakeholders and benefit all including the poorest of the poor. For key infrastructure initiatives, it is understandable that the govt. could ask for land. However, it should not be applicable for just about any project just because some elements of the society believe that it benefits all I can see where Modi is coming from - As the CM of Gujarat, he has had to fight for a lot of projects including the Sardar Sarovar Project. However, to craft national laws based on such experiences would not be advisable. Many people in India, including the poor, voted for BJP because they wanted Modi to be the PM. The last thing that the PM wants is to create unnecessary controversy by not considering an issue from 360 degrees and viewing everything from a development perspective. As I said, the definition of ideal development itself is debatable in context to countries such as India
asterix Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 ^ coupled with associates like Shiv Sena, you don't need opposition to create hurdles...
Sachin=GOD Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 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. Read this - http://www.newslaundry.com/2015/02/21/do-bheega-zameen/?utm_content=buffer49488&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
suraj Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 Problem with AAP is they are only good at protesting but never offer a viable alternative
jalebi_bhai Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 Then go slow with the vikas' date=' make it more organic. On one hand you want capitalism and argue for lesser government in business, and on the other the government runs an enterprise to acquire land for businesses.[/quote'] What is your proposal then? I'm talking about specifics here. I support the ordinance, on account of my family's experience. Financially, we benefited greatly when Mangalore Airport became an international airport (we are based in Bajpe). We lost a few cents of land, for which we were well compensated, but property prices more or less quadrupled-quintupled once the process of internationalization was complete (they started rising as soon as work began). In between acquisition and internationalization, people bought plots in and around the area with what they got from the govt. Once internationalized, some people sold their land for huge profit, others, like my dad, held on to theirs. To this day, my dad gets very lucrative offers from various people for a plot of land that is just shy of an acre. On the ground, everyone is happy and proud of the developments. The proposed ordinance can work and benefit all parties involved.
Recommended Posts