Land acquisition - views and perspectives

Bangalorean

Ambassador
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
6,233
Likes
6,853
Country flag
If you wish to argue on this topic open another thread.

If govt tries to take my house forcibly using eminent domain bs there will be some dead bodies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If you are paid market value for your house, plus something towards inconvenience and disruption of your routine, you can't complain.

If I am paid 4 crore for my house in Bangalore, plus 20-25 lakh for inconvenience and disruption, I will give up my house. The government can, and should force me to do so, provided they pay that rate, which is the market rate here.

If you want the government to listen to the whim of every houseowner and go worrying about dead bodies, that isn't going to happen. Your house can, and should, be acquired if it stands in the way of an infrastructure project. Of course, you should be fairly compensated.
 

Ancient Indian

p = np :)
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2014
Messages
3,403
Likes
4,199
Then people will say,
why should I give up my house and sacrifice my family legacy when no one gives two flying fu*ks to the Nation?
In our country, there is no honour in the king's words. No one expects the government to pay any thing. And they only take Poor man's land.
The government should come with good alternatives instead of making laws.
The system is damaged good. No one trust it.
 

anoop_mig25

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Messages
5,804
Likes
3,151
Country flag
No one is going to argue in this thread

What can any do is go whining in other threads
 

Bangalorean

Ambassador
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
6,233
Likes
6,853
Country flag
Then people will say,
why should I give up my house and sacrifice my family legacy when no one gives two flying fu*ks to the Nation?
In our country, there is no honour in the king's words. No one expects the government to pay any thing. And they only take Poor man's land.
The government should come with good alternatives instead of making laws.
The system is damaged good. No one trust it.
But they have taken lot of rich people's land also. Case in point: Bangalore metro construction.

There were a few court cases here and there, but by and large, people were satisfied with the compensation and willingly gave up their land. And this, in a city like Bangalore, where land is ridiculously expensive. Yet, metro is able to acquire land and keep everyone satisfied.

This situation can happen in any city - my house or @Singh's house might be acquired for an infrastructure project. Instead of threatening "dead bodies", better threaten "dead bodies only if compensation is not as per market rate".
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ancient Indian

p = np :)
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2014
Messages
3,403
Likes
4,199
It works in Bangalore but not in other places.
You people know laws and every thing but poor man doesn't know.
Poor man is also very sentimental about his possessions.
 

ezsasa

Designated Cynic
Mod
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
31,717
Likes
146,989
Country flag
For the rural land acquisitions I would prefer a formula where the land owner gets recurring income on a monthly or annual basis.

I was recently going thru Sunedison's offer of land acquisition for solar plants, they are offering rental for 20 years with monthly payments. If anybody has large non-agricultural lands , not a bad deal I would say.

American rates are between 1500 to 2000 usd per acre per year.
 

Singh

Phat Cat
Super Mod
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
20,311
Likes
8,403
Country flag
Eminent Domain criterion is the opposite of liberal economics. Here the State is forcing people to give up their property as per Govts whims without any veto and at govt dictated rates. It is as Anti Free Markets as things come.
 

Singh

Phat Cat
Super Mod
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
20,311
Likes
8,403
Country flag
India is one of the poorest country's in the world, depriving people of their lands aka their most prized possesion and giving them no veto power on their only possession and offering them "circle" rates which are much lower than market rates is tantamount to a crime against landowners.
 

Bangalorean

Ambassador
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
6,233
Likes
6,853
Country flag
Eminent Domain criterion is the opposite of liberal economics. Here the State is forcing people to give up their property as per Govts whims without any veto and at govt dictated rates. It is as Anti Free Markets as things come.
I have made it abundantly clear that the rates have to be fair. In the world we live in, we have a mechanism to decide "value" of any good. That mechanism is expressed in the form of something called "money".

I have pointed out Bangalore metro as an example where payment for land acquisition has by and large, been very fair. After the initial hullabaloo, it has been fairly smooth sailing for Bangalore metro land acquisition.

Why don't you tell me a practical and workable model in the absence of state acquisition? I need 1000 acres of land for an industrial cluster which will house 50 industries. The cluster will be well-equipped with warehousing, truck loading bays, and everything else that heavy industries need.

What is your practical model to obtain this land? Do you expect all the industries to get together, form an association, scout the country for an appropriate place, hope that the government gives them permission/licences to operate at that location, start negotiating with the landowners, work out terms, get the land, build infrastructure together, and then all move in together into the industrial park. As a man of the world with experience in business and industry, I am surprised that you can negate the role of the state in being an enabler for industrialization. Do you not see how imperative it is for the state to get the ball rolling?

I am not arguing for unfair acquisition. The key is fair and adequate compensation.
 

Bangalorean

Ambassador
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
6,233
Likes
6,853
Country flag
India is one of the poorest country's in the world, depriving people of their lands aka their most prized possesion and giving them no veto power on their only possession and offering them "circle" rates which are much lower than market rates is tantamount to a crime against landowners.
No one is asking for them to be given "circle rates". The "circle rate" of the land where I have my house is 10000/sft. Actual rate is closer to 20000/sft. That is the case in all of Bangalore, and I suspect, the country.

No one can acquire land at "circle rates". That is simply not sustainable. Again, the Bangalore metro has paid market rates, PLUS a little something for the inconvenience that you are being subjected to. No one is dissatisfied with the compensation - it has been fairly smooth sailing.
 

AnantS

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2013
Messages
5,594
Likes
14,927
Country flag
If you want the government to listen to the whim of every houseowner and go worrying about dead bodies, that isn't going to happen. Your house can, and should, be acquired if it stands in the way of an infrastructure project. Of course, you should be fairly compensated.
True. Had goverment been worried about graves, the Konkan Railway would have been still a work in progress. Seriously Just Land Reform is needed. Rrmodel Indian Cities and make them Green, Connected and Inclusive of All Economic sections.
 

Sambha ka Boss

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2014
Messages
701
Likes
375
India is one of the poorest country's in the world, depriving people of their lands aka their most prized possesion and giving them no veto power on their only possession and offering them "circle" rates which are much lower than market rates is tantamount to a crime against landowners.
Yes, to eradicate poverty our people need jobs which are created by infrastructure projects and setting up industries not by freebies or leftist policies.
 

Peter

Pratik Maitra
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2014
Messages
2,938
Likes
3,341
Country flag
The truth is that the GOI does not really compensate the people who are forced to give up land. I am not against land acquisition by GOI for SEZs,industries etc. However the land owner`s plight has to be taken into consideration. They should be given a fair deal and not what the GOI thinks to be the proper price for that land. For eg the govt here takes land from people by paying them 2-4 lacs while the actual market price may be 20-25 lacs. This is just intolerable. The poor farmers whose land is taken away cannot also find another suitable piece of land with the pittance the govt gives them.
 

anoop_mig25

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Messages
5,804
Likes
3,151
Country flag
The truth is that the GOI does not really compensate the people who are forced to give up land. I am not against land acquisition by GOI for SEZs,industries etc. However the land owner`s plight has to be taken into consideration. They should be given a fair deal and not what the GOI thinks to be the proper price for that land. For eg the govt here takes land from people by paying them 2-4 lacs while the actual market price may be 20-25 lacs. This is just intolerable. The poor farmers whose land is taken away cannot also find another suitable piece of land with the pittance the govt gives them.
What is fair price how to know it

the time when such projects are announced or even if rumors are spread then at that moment prices of suh land increase mani-fold .May land-owner starts expecting huge amount of money for a their land---holding ..

Also then there is issue where ngos etc etc want gov to provide orignal land owner with compensation money plus provide free skills to evrybody plus jobs also.I mean how 3 things are possible
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
India's Greek tragedy

Baijayant 'Jay' Panda



On land acquisition, we can defy global logic only at our peril

India is not the only country with a widespread belief in exceptionalism. Wikipedia describes the term as "the perception that a country, society, movement, or time period is unusual or extraordinary in some way, and thus does not need to conform to normal rules or general principles".

Many nations, both big and small, have also had histories of believing they are qualitatively different from other countries. Nevertheless, human societies have obvious underlying commonalities, and it can often be helpful to juxtapose the challenges we face with the experience of others.

It is worth examining the contentious issue of land acquisition in this context. While in India the raging debate on land acquisition centres on land owners' consent, it is revealing that in neither the US or China — at opposite ends of systems of governance — is any consent required when land is acquired for public purpose. It is a crucial contrast, for it goes to the heart of questions like whether our policymakers are looking for pragmatic solutions or are content to screech at each other.

Also, whether we are ready to finally accept that, though much can be done to improve farming, it is simply unsustainable for the sector to continue to provide livelihoods to 60% of our population. And whether our farmers' children can have realistic alternate career opportunities or are destined to be trapped in ever more fragmented, marginal farming. And finally, whether we as a nation at all believe that it is possible to create millions of jobs in manufacturing and services.

During the years-long process that led to the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (LARR) Act of 2013, the two most controversial aspects of the national debate were consent of land losers and compensation that they and those employed on their land ought to get. Till then, a 19th century Raj-era law had often been abused to dispossess farmers and others at a fraction of what would become the market price of their land after usage restrictions were lifted.

The issue of what percentage of the land-owners concerned would need to consent to an acquisition went through many convoluted iterations. An empowered group of ministers subcommittee of the Cabinet turned out to be not so empowered after all, when its recommendation was overruled and increased to 70% (and 80% for private companies). In scheduled areas this was further compounded by other overlapping laws, which essentially gave a veto to each panchayat, rather than, say, a majority of them in the entire area being acquired.

Even at the time, these were widely considered unworkable. The experience of these intervening months has only made that clearer, as even most of those opposing the recent changes admit in private. Of course, we don't need to blindly emulate other countries and must discern between their practices. And, to some degree, we have.

For instance, the Chinese definition of public purpose is vague, whereas India's is specific. But our definition is far narrower than in the US where in some cases private development has been deemed to constitute public purpose.

Similarly, the US emphasis on 'just compensation' for acquired land is worthy of emulation and our 2013 LARR Act goes to great lengths to ensure fair compensation and rehabilitation. Oddly, the initial outrage at the proposed new legislation included allegations that the compensation clauses were being rolled back. Whether that was deliberate or not, it quickly became apparent that was just not true, and the debate has since remained focussed on consent and other procedural aspects.

Once again, the studies, procedures and clearances mandated by the 2013 Act go far beyond what either the US or China follow, requiring a minimum of 50 months for projects to get the go ahead. And that assumes every stage of a complicated series of steps would work like clockwork, without any delays or extensions. Anyone who understands anything about the viability of infrastructure projects knows this is a sure-fire way to make them unviable.

Such provisions may be ideal from the perspective of a certain kind of philosophy, against industrialisation and the post-industrial economy per se, but can hardly be expected to cater to the million plus jobs that India now needs to create every month. As some countries have learnt at great cost — for instance, Greece on the issue of fiscal discipline — we can defy global logic only at our own peril.

To those genuinely seeking solutions it is equally critical to recognise that scepticism about fair compensation and whether lost land can translate to jobs is rooted in experience. For instance there are still disputed compensation and employment claims from the 1950s when the government acquired land for major dams, steel plants and the like.

Instead of looking in the rear view mirror at what has not worked in the past, we would be better served to benchmark what works in most of the world. It is incumbent on government now to ensure that compensation is unclogged and front-ended, that infrastructure is expedited and new jobs made visible, that education is reformed to promote employability. If we don't, counterintuitive as this may sound, some of the worst affected will be India's farmers.

India’s Greek tragedy - TOI Blogs
Panda does make a case with some sensible point.

Can we progress without being pragmatic?
 

Sakal Gharelu Ustad

Detests Jholawalas
Ambassador
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
7,114
Likes
7,761
I don't know why people start scratching the wrong ball whenever any analysis is needed.

Example:
- Question: Do we need land acquisition?
- Answer: Poor farmers are not compensated by the govt.

First, learn to answer correctly. Yes we need land acquisition because the average land holding size in India is so small that it helps no one. Then you can ask the next question: how to give a fair compensation. But in the hurry to sound as the messiah of the poors, most people mix up these two questions. Once we agree on the first one only then second can be answered. Yes, it would not always provide fair deal for everyone, but we can try to be close to ideal situation. But it is only possible if we ask right questions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kay

ezsasa

Designated Cynic
Mod
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
31,717
Likes
146,989
Country flag
Example:
- Question: Do we need land acquisition?
- Answer: Poor farmers are not compensated by the govt.
Infact today a similar question was put a farmer who was part of the rally at jantar mantar by a NDTV reporter.

Question: what is your opinion on new land bill?

Answer: we will not move from here till we get proper compensation.

Reporter turns to camera and says: clearly farmers are not in favour of land acquisition bill.

This was second day in a row the same reporter got a similar answer and she says " farmers are not happy with land acquisition bill"

Yesterday when the same question was put to a some lady in bullock cart in haryana , lady says we would rather sell the land and get some compensation as the land is too small. The reporter turns to camera and says " farmers not happy with land acquisition bill".

These NDTV idiots are taking everybody for a ride....
 

Kay

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
1,029
Likes
1,354
Country flag
@Sakal Gharelu Ustad
Land acquisition is needed and no one is debating that. I would say, we can give a fair deal to everyone. That should be the goal of the policies. If we start thinking that is negotiable, we cannot give a fair deal. And if we focus on fair deals, and acquisition will not be a problem anymore.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Sakal Gharelu Ustad

Detests Jholawalas
Ambassador
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
7,114
Likes
7,761
@Sakal Gharelu Ustad
Land acquisition is needed and no one is debating that. I would say, we can give a fair deal to everyone. That should be the goal of the policies. If we start thinking that is negotiable, we cannot give a fair deal. And if we focus on fair deals, and acquisition will not be a problem anymore.
Not really. There is a deep seated bias for the great idyllic village life that needs to be preserved by continuous transfers from urban areas to rural. Once everyone agrees that acquisition is needed and less people should work in agriculture, then solutions can be found. And we will ask right questions:

- How many people will be affected if we completely industrialize?
- Is that a big number?
- How many people should be employed in agriculture in the long run?
- Should there be arbitrary thresh holds like 4 times market price? etc. etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Kay

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
1,029
Likes
1,354
Country flag
Not really. There is a deep seated bias for the great idyllic village life that needs to be preserved by continuous transfers from urban areas to rural. Once everyone agrees that acquisition is needed and less people should work in agriculture, then solutions can be found. And we will ask right questions:

- How many people will be affected if we completely industrialize?
- Is that a big number?
- How many people should be employed in agriculture in the long run?
- Should there be arbitrary thresh holds like 4 times market price? etc. etc.
I guess you cannot answer these questions. Better questions would be:
1. What would be the cost of modernizing agriculture today using proven technologies?
2. How many people would we need to employ in the agricultural sector if we use these modern methods? - Then we know how many we need to resettle.
3. I guess rehabilitation is important - that is making sure that people can continue earning or have the necessary knowledge to use the money given.

All these need to be factored in during policy making.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top