Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement act, 2013

• The 2013 Act replaced the Land Acquisition Act, of 1894.
• The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) Bill,2015.
• The bill amends the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
• The Bill replaces the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) Ordinance, 2014.
• The LARR Act, 2013 outlines the process to be followed when land is acquired for a public purpose.
• The key changes made by the Bill are 
• It exempted 13 laws  (such as the National Highways Act 1956 and the Railways Act 1989) from its purview.
• It required that the compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement provisions of these 13 laws be brought in consonance with the LARR Act 2013, within a year of its enactment, through a notification.
• Exemptions The bill creates five special categories of land use, 

1. Defence,
2. Rural Infrastructure,
3. Affordable housing,
4. Industrial corridors and
5. Infrastructure projects including Public-Private Partnership projects where the government owns the land.

Land Acquisition

80 per cent of affected families must agree to private projects. For the PPP project, 70 per cent of affected families must agree. Only then the land can be acquired.

Social impact assessment

Under Social impact assessment (SIA) even need to obtain the consent of the affected artisans, labourers, tenant farmers, sharecroppers etc whose sustainable livelihood will be affected because of the given project.

Compensation

Compensation proportion to market rates,  4 times the market rate in rural areas and 2 times in urban areas.

Affected artisans, small traders, fishermen etc. will be given one-time payment, even if they do not own any land.

Food Security

Fertile, irrigated, multi-cropped farmland can be acquired only as a last resort. if such fertile land is received, then Government will have to develop an equal size of wasteland for agricultural purposes.

Private entities

If Government acquires the lands for a private company-the said the private company will be responsible for the relief and rehabilitation of the affected people.

Additional rehabilitation package for SC and ST owners.

Safeguards

State governments have to set up dispute settlements Chairman must be a district judge or lawyer for 7 years.

Accountability 

The Head of the department will be made responsible for any offence from Government's side. If the project does not start in 5 years, The land has to be returned to the original owner or the land bank.

Establishment of Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority for speedy disposal of disputes.

 Limitations

The Central Act of 2013 was brought to give effect to the pre-existing fundamental right to livelihood of citizens. It ensures that livelihood will not be taken away unless

(i) It is in the public interest and that is seen by a social impact assessment and                     

(ii) The affected citizens are given rehabilitation.

The amendments made without considering the above factors will take away the fundamental rights of the citizens.

 Section 24 (2)

• Under Section 24 (2), land acquisition made under the old law of 1894 lapses if the award of compensation had been made five years before the new Act came into force, but has not been paid.
• The process has to be gone through afresh under the new Act, which mandates higher compensation.
• There are cases in which farmers and other landowners have refused the compensation, leading to delays in the government taking possession. the compensation amount is deposited in the government treasury.
• One interpretation, if this is done, the acquisition process is saved. Then again, others contend that such cases will fall under the new act because compensation has not been paid to the landowners and the lapsing clause in section 24 should be applied.

Supreme Court Judgement on Land Acquisition Act

 Pune Municipal Corporation vs. Harakchand M. Solanki

In 2014 a three-Judge Bench ruled that the acquisition of a piece of land had lapsed because the compensation awarded had neither been paid to the landowners or persons interested nor deposited in the court.

Indore Development Authority vs. Shailendra.

The three-judge bench did not accept the earlier bench's view. The majority, consisting of the first two judges, ruled that the acquisition would not lapse merely because the compensation amount was not deposited in court, but was instead deposited in the treasury.

• In 2008 a high court quashed the land acquisition case since it was not a subsisting process. The question under section 24(2), whether the acquisition lapsed because of non-payment of compensation or non-deposit in the court, did not arise at all.
• In another case that came up before a bench the fact that their earlier judgement had been overruled was brought to their notice.
• Lawyers appearing before them argued that Justice Mishra's Bench, being of the same size as the one that rendered the earlier verdict, was bound by it and ought not to have overruled it.
• In case, it disagreed with the earlier view, it could have referred the matter to a larger Bench.
• The court, then put on hold all hearings involving section 24 (2). Later, the question was referred to a larger bench for an authoritative judgment.