jalebi_bhai Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 My ideal solution is to have a free market where buyer and seller come to whatever conclusion. Obviously' date=' that's not possible for projects like railway and the use of force to grab land. So, my solution is anything above 4 times the genuinely calculated land value must be given. This is in addition to social and environmental impact assessments. [/quote'] As per the ordinance, the compensation to rural land owners will be 4 times the market rate and 2 times, which was the same per the 2013 act. So it is more or less what you are suggesting. It isn't only my personal experience. The expansion and internationalization of Mangalore Airport received massive local support. No protests from the locals, before and after internationalization. You know why was it so? Simply because none of the local politicians in Bajpe played petty politics. People were explained of the situation, and they decided to support the expansion. All this was achieved under the 1894 act btw. I'm giving you a real-life example to back my argument. You might have your own examples and experiences supporting your argument, and fair enough. Maybe there is a situation where 79% landowners in your area approve of the building of a hospital in your area. Your family's decision might be the deciding 1%. By saying no to the construction of the hospital, you could be potentially denying the consensual 79% of the opportunity to earn some wealth as well as access to better health care services in your locality. This could be one scenario :dontknow:
The Outsider Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 As per the ordinance, the compensation to rural land owners will be 4 times the market rate and 2 times, which was the same per the 2013 act. So it is more or less what you are suggesting. I have zero problems with the prescribed compensation level, as long as it is a floor with the opportunity to get more. Again, exclusions like rail road, highways built by the government, power lines etc., I feel are within their rights to cap the compensation at 4-5 times. It isn't only my personal experience. The expansion and internationalization of Mangalore Airport received massive local support. No protests from the locals, before and after internationalization. You know why was it so? Simply because none of the local politicians in Bajpe played petty politics. People were explained of the situation, and they decided to support the expansion. All this was achieved under the 1894 act btw. I have no issues about the 'miyan biwi raazi tou kya karega kaazi' situation you are describing. If people want to sell their land, let them. I am against forceful acquisitions. I'm giving you a real-life example to back my argument. You might have your own examples and experiences supporting your argument, and fair enough. That's my point. Giving personal examples does not advance the debate on a broad front. You might think that refusing to sell land at 50X the current value is asinine, and I might not. And come to think of it if that kind of money was on the table, I might as well buy the deal. It does nothing to advance the debate on where the government should have a say in acquiring land. Maybe there is a situation where 79% landowners in your area approve of the building of a hospital in your area. Your family's decision might be the deciding 1%. By saying no to the construction of the hospital, you could be potentially denying the consensual 79% of the opportunity to earn some wealth as well as access to better health care services in your locality. This could be one scenario :dontknow: That's a stupid argument because in the law a line has to be drawn somewhere, as long as it's in the broad figure. You can drink when you are 21 in the US but not at 21 - 1 day. Does that one day make you handle your drinks better?
jalebi_bhai Posted March 5, 2015 Posted March 5, 2015 I have no issues about the 'miyan biwi raazi tou kya karega kaazi' situation you are describing. If people want to sell their land' date=' let them. I am against forceful acquisitions.[/quote'] You're missing the point. The acquisition happened under the 1894 act, which has the same consent clause as the latest bill, not the 2013 act. So miyan, biwi and kaazi had to relinquish their land without having much say. However, they did so willingly, without any protests. And they have no regrets about doing so. I'm giving you a general consensus on the issue. I'm presenting a real-life example of a win-win situation for both the Govt. and citizens. It's what people do while presenting an argument. You like talking about your Dasheri mangoes, I'm presenting you with an actual case. Maybe if a plot of land is large enough and strategically located, the refusal of the owner could be a big enough hindrance to stall a project.
The Outsider Posted March 5, 2015 Posted March 5, 2015 You're missing the point. The acquisition happened under the 1894 act, which has the same consent clause as the latest bill, not the 2013 act. So miyan, biwi and kaazi had to relinquish their land without having much say. However, they did so willingly, without any protests. And they have no regrets about doing so. Let's assume what you are saying is true about everyone being happy. This is one data point, and there are numerous instances where protests have happened and people haven't been happy with the compensation and/or rehabilitation. I'm giving you a general consensus on the issue. I'm presenting a real-life example of a win-win situation for both the Govt. and citizens. It's what people do while presenting an argument. You like talking about your Dasheri mangoes, I'm presenting you with an actual case. All I am saying is you cannot use isolated personal experiences to make a case. Was there any independent scientific/sociological study done which backs your argument? I can point out dozens of studies done on the poor treatment of people displaced by the Narmada project for instance under the 1894 law. Even after more than a decade people have not been rehabilated. You certainly can't blame me for taking those independent scientific/sociological studies more seriously than jalebi bhai. Doing away with the social impact assessment will lead to more such situations as Narmada dam. Maybe if a plot of land is large enough and strategically located, the refusal of the owner could be a big enough hindrance to stall a project. Then let it be. That's free market. For certain projects like railroad and highways, sure have exceptions. However, if Tata wants to manufacture cars, Amity wants to open a college, or Fortis an hospital I see little sense in overriding free market economics. These are companies with large resources at their disposal, let them figure out a way in the free market.
jalebi_bhai Posted March 8, 2015 Posted March 8, 2015 Let's assume what you are saying is true about everyone being happy. This is one data point, and there are numerous instances where protests have happened and people haven't been happy with the compensation and/or rehabilitation. All I am saying is you cannot use isolated personal experiences to make a case. Was there any independent scientific/sociological study done which backs your argument? Arrey, when did I say everything was always hunky dory? I am not even disagreeing with your claims. Even in the case of Mangalore Airport, there were a few concerns when it came to land acquisition for the extended runway. However, these concerns were eventually addressed, thanks to the efforts of a bureaucrat, MR Vasudeva (Airport Director at the time), who went house to house and gave people assurances. Things went smoothly after that. There was a revision of the compensation per cent in around 2005 which more or less settled things. I am just saying, not every act of land acquisition has to become a coercive showdown between the govt. and citizens like the NBA. Unfortunately, there haven't been any in-depth independent studies that I could find to back up my claims. I spent a few hours trying to find such studies, but to no avail. I can point out dozens of studies done on the poor treatment of people displaced by the Narmada project for instance under the 1894 law. Even after more than a decade people have not been rehabilated. Please go ahead then. I'm sorry that I'm not able to return the favor with regards to Mangalore. As far as my knowledge goes, most of the tribals who were displaced by the Sardar Sarovar project in the Gujarat and Maharashtra belt have been successfully rehabilitated. In the MP belt, there is still some work to be done. Then let it be. That's free market. For certain projects like railroad and highways, sure have exceptions. However, if Tata wants to manufacture cars, Amity wants to open a college, or Fortis an hospital I see little sense in overriding free market economics. These are companies with large resources at their disposal, let them figure out a way in the free market. Businesses exist to make profit. They need incentive to invest. Private enterprises are not charities. Do you want PSUs for every sector? Times have changed. People are no longer interested in digging and re-filling ditches for Rs 1000 per month. Besides, there is no reason why profit-making should get in the way of human and social development. They can go hand in hand. Economically and social development wise, is West Bengal better off after the Singur fiasco?
Khalpat Posted March 11, 2015 Posted March 11, 2015 So the bill got passed in Lok Sabha with 9 ammendments. It is going to be a huge task in Rajya Sabha as government do not have numbers. Isn't it highly frustrating, the government which has been elected by the majority of population of India is not able to even pass a bill because of the opposition of a party which has been badly defeated in recent election. What kind of democracy is this?
Recommended Posts