The acquisition of land for different public purposes has become not only a blood-letting political question in recent weeks but also a legal one. The Supreme Court is currently hearing a large number of appeals from Karnataka, where the land owners have challenged the take-over of vast chunks of urban tracts in Bangalore by the government. They allege, among other things, discrimination in the selection of land for acquisition and the amount of compensation.
There has been an unusually large number of judgements on land acquisitions in recent weeks. In one such, Nelson Fernandes vs Special Land Acquisition Officer, Goa, the Supreme Court held that the state must take into consideration the purpose of acquisition of private land while fixing the quantum of compensation to be awarded to the land owner.
This ruling is bound to have a deep impact on the policy of setting up special economic zones. If the purpose is commercial, the compensation must be proportionate to the size of the project.
The land in this case was acquired for building a new broad gauge line of the Konkan Railways. The acquisition authorities gave Rs 4 per sq metre. The award was challenged in the district court, which fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs 192 per sq metre. The high court reduced the figure to Rs 38.
The Supreme Court fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs 250 after criticising the high court's evaluation. "In our opinion, the compensation awarded by the high court had no basis whatsoever and was not supported by cogent reason and it did not consider the future prospect of the development of the land in question," the judgement said.
According to the Supreme Court, the other parameters for arriving at a just figure for compensation are the market value, location of the land and the loss of income suffered by the land owner and availability of basic amenities such as water and electricity. If these points are taken care of in a fair manner, a lot of bitterness could be avoided.
In another recent case, Viluben Jhalejar Contractor vs State of Gujarat, the lands were acquired because they were submerged under dam water. The owners claimed a compensation of Rs 40 per sq ft.
They were in fact awarded a compensation ranging from Rs 35 to Rs 60 per sq metre. The subordinate court fixed the market value of the land at Rs 200. On appeal, the high court awarded a compensation of Rs 180.
Another judgement delivered last week again raised questions regarding the assessment of the compensation figure. This case, Numaligarh Refinery Ltd vs Green View Tea & Industries Ltd, was an appeal against the decision of the Gauhati high court.
The Supreme Court found that the compensation awarded by the high court was inadequate and it modified the formula, observing that "fixation of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act involves an element of rational guess work."
These cases were decided after more than a decade of litigation over the compensation amounts. The Supreme Court put a stop to another long-standing litigation in HMT Ltd vs Mudappa last week, which might be a sort of record in land acquisition cases. The land was taken over in 1978 for establishing the watch factory of the public sector undertaking.
The Karnataka high court found that the notification for acquisition was issued in violation of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act and it was a mala fide exercise of its power. The Supreme Court set aside the high court judgement and allowed the authorities to take appropriate proceedings.
The question of 'public purpose' in acquiring land is another thorny issue and it has been unsatisfactorily settled by the Supreme Court in recent judgements. The decision in Pratibha Nema vs State of Madhya Pradesh (2003), dealt with the phrase 'public purpose', which has not been defined in the Land Acquisition Act. The issue of the government taking over land for private industries by giving compensation was dealt with in detail.
It then came to a controversial conclusion: "By contributing a trifling sum, the character and pattern of acquisition could be changed by the government. In the ultimate analysis, what is considered to be an acquisition for facilitating the setting up of an industry in the private sector could get imbued with the character of public purpose acquisition if only the government comes forward to sanction the payment of a nominal sum towards compensation."
All these point to a disquieting state of affairs. The parameters for assessing the compensation, complicated procedures, delay in the courts and the meaning read into public purpose are some of the impediments in quickly solving disputes over land acquisition. As a result, infrastructure projects are delayed and political interests step in. The country can hardly afford this when the projects are already delayed by decades.
