Unfolding Thoughts

Home / All posts

THE LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT BILL: SOME SALIENT FEATURES

Posted by ABC Monday, 21 October 2013 0 comments

The provisions of this Act relating to land acquisition, rehabilitation and resettlement, shall apply, when the appropriate Government acquires land:

(a) For its own use, hold and control; or

(b) With the purpose to transfer it for the use of private companies for public purpose (including Public Private Partnership projects but not including national or state highway projects); or

(c) On the request of private companies for immediate and declared use by such companies of land for public purposes:

Provided that no land shall be transferred by way of acquisition, in the Scheduled Areas in contravention of the law relating to land transfer, prevailing in such Scheduled Areas.

The provisions relating to rehabilitation and resettlement under this Act shall apply in the cases where:

(a) A private company purchases or acquires land, equal to or more than one hundred acres in rural areas or equal to or more than fifty acres in urban areas, through private negotiations with the owner of the land;

(b) A private company requests the appropriate Government for acquisition of a part of an area so identified for a public purpose:

Provided that where a private company requests the appropriate Government for partial acquisition of land for public purpose then the rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements shall be applicable for the entire area identified for acquisition by the private company and not limited to the area for which the request is made.

Whenever, it appears to the appropriate Government that land in any area is required or likely to be required for any public purpose, a notification to that effect along with details of the land to be acquired in rural and urban areas shall be published in the following manner, namely:

(a) In the Official Gazette;

(b) In two daily newspapers circulating in the locality of such area of which one shall be in regional language;

(c) On the website of the appropriate Government in public domain;

(d) By making available a copy of the notification for inspection by persons affected, at the collectorate and tehsil office and at the concerned gram panchayat or urban local body office;

(e) The Collector shall also cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be put up at convenient and conspicuous places in the said area.

The Rehabilitation and Resettlement Award shall include all of the following, namely:

(a) Rehabilitation and resettlement amount payable to the family;

(b) Bank account number of the person to which the rehabilitation and resettlement award amount is to be transferred;

(c) Particulars of house site and house to be allotted, in case of displaced families;

(d) Particulars of land allotted to the displaced families;

(e) Particulars of one time subsistence allowance and transportation allowance in case of displaced families;

(f) Particulars of payment for Cattle Shed and petty shops;

(g) Particulars of one-time amount to artisans and small traders;

(h) Details of mandatory employment to be provided to the members of the affected families;

(i) Particulars of any fishing rights that may be involved;

(j) Particulars of annuity and other entitlements to be provided;

(k) Particulars of special provisions for Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes to be provided.

Where the appropriate Government is satisfied that there is likely to be involuntary displacement of persons due to acquisition of land, then, the State Government shall, by notification, appoint in respect of that project, an officer not below the rank of Joint Collector or Additional Collector or Deputy Collector or equivalent official of Revenue Department to be the Administrator for Rehabilitation and Resettlement.

Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that the temporary occupation and use of any waste or arable land are needed for any public purpose, or for a company, the appropriate Government may direct the Collector to procure the occupation and use of the same for such terms as it shall think fit, not exceeding three years from the commencement of such occupation.

If a person, in connection with a requirement or direction under this Act, provides any information or produces any document that the person knows is false or misleading, he shall be liable to be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.

NOTA – The right to reject

Posted by ABC Saturday, 28 September 2013 0 comments

From credentials and criminal antecedents of candidates to the rights of voters, the Supreme Court has triggered a massive debate by touching the crucial aspects of elections. This will not only strengthen the idea of free and fair elections but will go a long way in encouraging the exercising of the right to vote among the citizens of India. Use of money and muscle power, rigging of poll booths, nexus between the electorates and the corporate houses, candidates with criminal cases pending against them being allowed to contest elections are some of the aspects that have long induced the voters to refrain from participating in the democracy. It was therefore, imperative on the legislature as well as the judiciary to plunge into the cesspool that the politics in India has been reduced to and rid it of its malaise.

By directing the Election Commission to provide a ‘none of the above’ (NOTA) button on the electronic voting machines which can be pressed by a voter to reject all the candidates in a poll in case s/he finds them unsuitable, the Supreme Court has brought the elections in India on the brink of inspirational change. It has ushered in a key electoral reform that has found favours in the past with the Election Commission of India as well as the Law Commission. As architected by the former Chief Election Commissioner T S Krishnamurthy, the idea of according a negative vote the same sanctity and secrecy as a vote in favour of a particular candidate is a landmark step in the parliamentary democracy.

At a time when the elections in India have been contaminated with sleaze money and big corporate interests and many unscrupulous electorates stoop to undignified levels to exploit the cult of ethnicity by playing the communal card, the right to reject will promote free and fair elections and help in reducing bogus voting which is rampant in many parts of the country. Often politicians tend to woo the voters on the basis of material gratification rather than larger political and ideological issues. Often the expenditure incurred by the political parties on their election propaganda surpasses the limit prescribed by the Election Commission. Even after repeated efforts to ensure free and fair elections, criminals are offered tickets to contest elections from their constituencies. There is therefore, a need to bring a sharp change in the electoral dynamics of the nation. The NOTA ruling provides an opportunity to the citizens to safeguard their integrity and that of the nation by rejecting convicted legislators and rabble-rousing demagogues.

What is however uncertain is the practical impact such a provision will have on the outcome of elections. Election results have seldom shown any deviation in the twelve countries where a provision to reject candidates exist. Perhaps the Election Commission could fix a limit beyond which the percentage of NOTA votes would entail re-polling.

Whatever the outcome may be, the need of the hour is to bring transparency in the electoral process and strengthen it structurally. Other issues include but are not limited to curbing the money power and the menace of paid news. It is necessary to crack the whip on convicted legislators by disqualifying them and imposing upon them a ban on contesting elections. Equally important is to encourage voter participation through media mobilisation and awareness campaigns. Acceptance of freebies by the voters should be a big NO if they are not to become morally corrupt. It is incumbent on us to appreciate the fact that the right to elect includes the right to reject.

The Rahul Raga

Posted by ABC 0 comments

“The ordinance is a complete nonsense. It should be torn up and thrown away. The argument being made in my organisation is that we need to do this because of political considerations that everybody does this. There is a time to stop this nonsense. What the government is doing with this is completely wrong”
--Rahul Gandhi (Vice President, Indian National Congress)

Rahul Gandhi’s blistering attack on the ordinance seeking to overturn the Supreme Court verdict disqualifying MPs and MLAs upon their conviction has reiterated the fact that we still have leaders with moral conscience. Not only did he deviate from the ‘party line’ which would have otherwise been considered a sacrilege, he stood for the cause of the truth. Indeed, corruption cannot be fought with small compromises and hurling accusations at each other by different political parties will only debilitate our struggle against the menace of corruption.

The Representation of the People (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 2013 was not only a gross violation of the landmark judgement of the Supreme Court but was also a breach of trust that the citizens of this country have bestowed on their leaders. It was tantamount to stabbing in the back of voters who were promised fair governance free from criminals. It was a politically calculated move to shield convicted legislators and the associated corporate interests. Rahul Gandhi’s outburst against the ordinance whose objective has been questioned by the President is legitimate and it should not be seen as an act of embarrassing the Prime Minister or a mockery of the ‘party line’.

What is however contentious is the fact that whether this stunning backtrack on Cabinet decision is a political gimmick to salvage the party and the government’s image. Why such a public condemnation of the ordinance now which was being stubbornly defended by the government despite vehement protests by the Opposition? Why it was not opposed at the very outset when the Bill was being floated in the Rajya Sabha? More importantly, why wasn’t the ordinance opposed in a party meeting and a press conference was chosen instead?

Among the 4,807 total MPs and MLAs, 1460 (30%) declared criminal cases against them and 688 (14%) declared serious criminal cases pending against them. In such a scenario, what we need to do is to prevent the transfer of power into the hands of these criminals. This requires that strict penal action be taken against them and they be debarred from contesting elections in future. Rahul Gandhi’s dissent is laudable because it will ultimately benefit the nation if such an ordinance is stemmed from the root. However, it is incumbent on him to understand that the true mark of a leader is his capacity to speak his mind at the right time and place – and speak it knowing the consequences.

Should death penalty be abolished

Posted by ABC Tuesday, 17 September 2013 0 comments

“I was a man once. I'm a beast now and they made me what I am. They chained me up like a wild animal; they lashed me like a hound. I fed on filth, I was covered with vermin. They took away my name, they took away my soul and they gave me a devil in its place.”

--THE BISHOP'S CANDLESTICKS

Crime and punishment go hand in hand, so do war and peace. With increasing incidents of crime across the nation – rape, homicide, human trafficking, drug abuse, flesh trade et cetera, the clamour for harsher and stringent punishment is becoming louder and stronger. Doesn’t it seem legitimate – what right do people guilty of heinous crimes lay claim to? What do they deserve but death for their immoral offence? Isn’t it incumbent on the society to rid itself of the sin and the perpetrators of crime? Isn’t the victim entitles to justice even if it means wreaking vengeance on the accused by demanding his/her death?

Death sentence speaks to a larger underlying incoherence in India’s penology. Awarding death penalty is tantamount to withdrawing the protective arm of community around the convict and is a step backward in a society’s progress from barbarity to civilised refinement. Punishment, however harsh it may be is not meant to be revenge. Its purpose it to assuage the feeling of unfortunate victims -a compensation, however meagre. This, by no means implies that punishment should not match the severity, callousness and ruthlessness of the crime committed. For the punishment to be just it must have only that degree of intensity that suffices to deter others from crime. Of late it has been widely observed and reported that the death penalty was aimed at deterring the future commission of crime, which it did not achieve and at reforming the offenders, which it cannot achieve.

No loss of human life should be a reason for celebration, however despicable the individual might have been. Retaining the death penalty on the grounds of retribution alone is flawed at many levels beyond its inherent immorality. It contradicts the core objectives of the criminal justice system – to reform and rehabilitate the offenders. No individual is born a criminal. The punitive system of the society and the trials and tribulations faced by an individual deviate him from his path of humanity sow the seeds of bitterness, resentment and hostility in his heart. This induces him to come in conflict with law. Lashing a convict at a time when he needs to be treated compassionately thwarts the transformation process in its nascent stages that is already very gradual owing to various familial, social and environmental factors.

The need of the hour is to revisit our laws and consider a moratorium on death penalty. Rather than demanding guillotine for an accused, we need to strengthen our laws and ensure peace through better policing, effective and efficient prosecutorial conduct. We need to focus our attention on developing ways to reform our prisoners. We need to uproot crime right at the grassroots level through a better education structure by encouraging dialogue among the different sections of society. Let us not forget that an eye for an eye will make the entire world blind.

Unfolding Thoughts

Pages

Search This Blog