Land bill highly anti-farmer, anti-industry: NAC

NC Saxena, member, National Advisory Council and Rajeev Talwar, executive director, DLF both discuss about the land acquisition bill and CCI which received cabinet's nod and the implication of the nod on industry, farmers and economy at large.  

Also read: Cabinet clears Cabinet Committee on Investment

Below is the edited transcript of his interview to CNBC-TV18.

Q: The land bill has finally received cabinet's go-ahead and the 80 percent consent norm stays. What is your view?

Saxena: The debate on the land acquisition bill has been rather ill informed because the bill is highly anti-farmer and anti-industry both. The bill is only pro- bureaucracy and pro-civil society.

It mean that, suppose if one want to acquire one acre of land under the present bill, it will take at least three years and signature of at least 200 people. So, therefore it will neither help the farmer nor it will help the industry. Industry will have to wait for three years before they can acquire land. There are no fast procedures. So, I am really disappointed with the bill.

The bill has created lot of jobs for civil society. They will be in many committees. Even for acquiring one acre of land there are many committees which have been created. So, they will be traveling all over, give all kinds of reports and bureaucracy would be very happy because so many people have to agree. There should have been much more delegation, much more faster disposal of cases that is not envisaged.

The bill is anti-farmer because the compensation has been limited to just twice the market value. There is no procedure for negotiations. Framers cannot ask for more. In fact the compensation should have been decided by calling the farmers, sitting with them and negotiating with them. That is not provided.

Q: What is you view on both the CCI which is likely to fast track large scale infrastructure projects and land bill. What does this mean for the economy?

Saxena: I welcome the decision on Cabinet Committee on Investment for three reasons. First, this is the constitutional position that if there is disagreement between various ministries, ministry of industry versus ministry of environment, it is for the cabinet to take a decision or cabinet committee to take a decision for the entire government.

Second, all projects will destroy and have some impact on environment. The ministry of environment has Rs 30000 crore lying in its coffers for a forestation which they have not been able to use. So, they should spend all the time and energy in ensuring that this Rs 30000 crore is spent and new trees come up and the environment is protected, a forestation takes place.

Third, it is seen that the decisions of the ministry of environment are very arbitrary, ad-hoc and delayed because they are not concerned with industrialization and economic growth. So, therefore they always take a very negative view. So, therefore it is very important that their reports are examined by another ministry and there is some kind of guideline which would be set after some time on what basis projects should be approved and there would be some cases where government will say no to projects where the damage to industry or the people is irreparable.

Q: Both land bill and Cabinet Committee on Investment has been cleared to fast track infrastructure projects. What is your view on both?

Talwar: The Cabinet Committee on Investment is a growth idea. In land bill one will have to study the details what has been cleared and what not. Whether distinction has been made between willing buyer, willing seller transactions or will everything come under the Land Acquisition Act and relief and rehabilitation bill.

Q: We understand everything will come under the Land Acquisition Act and you will require 80 percent consent. Private public partnership project will require 70 percent consent?

Talwar: I think you are little mistaken. We are not talking about public private partnership projects. We are talking about transactions under the Transfer of Property Act which have been traditionally allowed to be done at market prices, fair compensation between two private sector people. So, one has got to wait and see because if everything comes in the burden being imposed on the government would be so great that perhaps we will need a full new department of land acquisition in every district or every place in the country.

Q: What about the rehabilitation process and as NC Saxena, formerly with the NAC saying that he believes that every land transaction even if it involves the transaction of one acre of land will go into a three year window?

Talwar: I think what the government is taking on is a bit too much of work and that's not called for.

Q: In terms of the rehabilitation and cost of projects, the rehabilitation cost we don't know if they have been changed, but what was sent to cabinet was two times and five times as far as the rural markets were concerned, what will it mean in terms of cost escalation?

Talwar: In terms of cost one has to see how to arrive at the net present value of that. Who determines at what stage, at what value of land, what is the process that they will go through because after all vested interests could always play a part the moment you get to know a few months or a few years before what is going to happen in a particular state, in a particular act of land. May be one of the best businesses in the future would be to buy land and have it acquired. You could really multiply your money by that.