It is clear from the recent proposals that the land was being acquired in excess in the name on development and national interest. If the land was not required for national development, why should the State be allowed to acquire it? And if the State fails to utilize it, why should it be allowed to transfer it to other private individuals and companies?Such transfers indeed violate the very purpose of the land acquisition. It is also a criminal breach of trust between the citizen ryots and the State, because of the change of land use other than the purpose for which it is acquired. The land acquired for particular public purpose should not be allowed to be transferred for ‘private purpose’ only in the name of monetization after enforcing the ryots to surrender their rights to the State in the name of development or national interest.True, the ryots might have been compensated for their land. But then the compensations have never been enough for the ryots, while the prices of their acquired lands become manifold just after acquisition.An estimate shows that the average prices of the land increases by 60 to 80 times soon after their acquisition for national highways. It is rank dishonesty to acquire people’s land at a cheaper rate by the State and sell it at higher rates to other private parties or earn money from them at the cost of ryots. That the State has paid compensation is not a justification to violate the very objective of the land acquisition.People have brought Modi to govern and to give them a better life, not to grab their land in the name of development and national interest, and to lease or transfer it ultimately to private entities, in violation of the originally announced ‘public purpose’ at the time of acquisition.The government may change the announced ‘public purpose’ for another urgent ‘public purpose’, but maneuvering the principle of acquisition for the benefit of ‘private entities’ will be wrong.The Union government must also ensure that ryots’ land is not acquired in excess or surplus if it is not required, and the practice of acquiring land only to sell it thereafter or for making money must stop.(IPA Service)Views are personal
Source link
