Land-buy recos have derailed industry's debate: Seshasayee

NC Saxena, member, National Advisory Committee and R Seshasayee, executive vice-chairman, Ashok Leyland  and  former president, CII presented their views on CNBC-TV18 about the recommendations regarding land acquisition by the Standing Parliamentary Committee.

While Saxena throws light on the benefit that  should accrue for those dependant on the land, Seshasayee is concerned about the underlying message emphasising the negative influence of industry.

He says that the recommendations had "knocked the bottom off" industry's debate on improving the acquisition process.

Below is an edited transcript of the discussion on CNBC-TV18. Also watch the accompanying videos.

Q: How should the Standing Committee's recommendations be viewed?

Saxena: There are three parties involved ��" industry, land owners and the poor who are dependent on land and act as labour.

Now industry could buy land directly from the farmer as proposed by the Standing Committee.But the landless labourer suffers because he doesn't get any money whereas in the Bill it was provided that he would also be covered through a rehabilitation package.

The other point is that industry will suffer in such cases because in central and eastern India the land records are in a very bad shape, industry will just not know from whom to buy and therefore they would have to depend upon land mafia or intermediaries, which is not a good idea.

The third point is that in private negotiations it is seen that the small farmers and marginal farmers are the ones who sell their land at a very cheap price and it is the large farmers who hold out and they get a good price.

So, therefore within the same area there would be lot of variation from farmer to farmer.

Fourthly, tribals and other such poor communities have no idea about land markets, the proposal of the committee maybe okay for Punjab, Haryana or western Uttar Pradesh or Greater Noida.

Q: What is your reading at the end of what has been put out by the Standing Committee report? Are its recommendations better for the industry than the original Bill or do is industry in a worse situation?

Seshasayee: From my limited understanding of what I have seen, industry certainly must be very concerned. The message being sent out by the recommendations of the Parliamentary panel is that, 'industry is not for public good, irrigation is, schooling is, health is, but industry is not so important, it is not for the public good'.

That to my mind is an extremely disturbing message. In a way it will set the clock back because for many decades industry was for public good and state governments acquired lands for industrial purposes.

So, the debate which started as to what should be the obligation for industry in terms of R&R, in terms of how much value to be paid had its bottom knocked out by the message that industry is not for public good.

Q: The committee goes a step further than the original Bill. The original Bill says that industry cannot acquire multi-crop land. The Bill also proposes that industry cannot acquire agricultural land or acquire land in tribal areas?

Saxena: That is not a good way to present the argument because land would be needed for a lot of industries to mine the minerals available in those areas. So, therefore what needs to be seen is what the tribals have to gaining from such a proposition.