Governance Now, July 1-15, 2011
Maheshwar hydel project in Madhya Pradesh provides a valuable lesson on how letting a private company to acquire land for development projects can actually do more harm than good
Following the brouhaha over land acquisition in Bhatta-Parsaul in Greater Noida, the government has renewed its promise to bring in two legislations – one to amend the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 and the other to provide resettlement and rehabilitation rights to those who lose their land and livelihood to such acquisitions.
The basic purpose of the exercise is to address two fundamental flaws in the antiquated Land Acquistition Act. While this law gives unlimited power to the government to acquire land, it provides nothing beyond cash compensation in return. Given the imperial context in which it was framed, it is hardly surprising that this law is silent on rehabilitation and resettlement (R&R) of those who survive on the land and hence, would be rendered destitute without it.
But the new formulation, in the form of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, readied in 2007 but held back because of Mamata Banerjee’s opposition, will not improve the situation. If at all, it will worsen it. Instead of following the existing policy of ‘land in lieu of land’, the draft bill allows a private company to buy up to 70 percent of land needed for a development project and the rest, 30 percent, will then be acquired by the goverernment on its behalf. And the proposed R&R legislation will be applicable to those displaced from this 30 percent land. (The National Advisory Council has, in the meanwhile, suggested continuation of the existing law that allows the government acquiring all the required land.)
The Maheshwar hydel project in Madhya Pradesh is a fine example of how letting a private company buy 70 percent land can play havoc with the lives of the small and marginal farmers, tribals and other weaker sections of society who are sought to be protected by the proposed legislations.
Some basic facts first. The Maheshwar hydroelectric project is a run-of-the-river scheme conceived and finalised by the Narmada Valley Development Authority (NVDA) of the Madhya Pradesh government in 1988 and is one of the 30 major dams being built on the Narmada. It was handed over to the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board in 1991 and two years later, to a private company, S Kumar-promoted Shri Maheshwar Hydel Power Corporation Limited (SMHPCL). It was the first hydel project in the country to be thus given to a private company under the policy of promoting private sector participation in generating power.
The project involves building a 36m high concrete dam on the Narmada in Khargaon district to generate 400 mw of power. When complete, it will submerge 5,700 hectare of land, of which 4,900 hectare belongs to the government and the rest, 873 hectare to the farmers, tribals and others living in 61 villages – 13 of which will submerge fully, nine partially and 39 will lose only agricultural land.
In 1999, land acquisition notice was issued to acquire Jalud village, which is closest to the dam site. But it was only to acquire the ‘abadi’ (homestead land) of the village, not its agricultural land which too will submerge. The Damocles’ sword was thus hung over their heads.
Interestingly, such notices were not issued for the rest of the villages.
No land for land
Another interesting development took place simultaneously. The private company (SMHPCL), which is to bear the resettlement and rehabilitation cost of the people to be displaced, was allowed to buy agricultural land to be submerged.
SMHPCL got into work with right ernest and ended up buying 583 hectares of the total 873 hectares of land belonging to more than 1,000 families – that is, 66.78 percent of agricultural land needed to be acquired – until it was stopped by the Madhya Pradesh high court in 2009.
The high court, staying the private purchase of land, said in its order of May 6, 2009: “In our considered opinion, therefore, allowing the purchase of land of the oustees by private sale-deeds by the respondent no 2 (SMHPCL) would not only be contrary to the R&R Policy as amended up to 2005 but may also be result in exploitation of the oustees by the respondent no 2 (SMHPCL) by denying them their R&R entitlements and this may amount to violation of their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.”
The court not only objected to private buying of land, saying that there was no such provision in the state government’s R&R policy, it also objected to the clause in the sale-deeds prepared and registered by SMHPCL which said the oustee selling land will not be entitled to the government’s R&R policy, including the benefit of ‘land in lieu of land’. The R&R policy provides for land for land – a minimum of two and a maximum of eight hectares.
I C Jain, SMHPCL’s senior general manager looking after R&R work at the site, says the company decided to pay cash for land because the state government said no agricultural land was available for the oustees. He also says that the landholders were paid higher than the prevailing market rate (up to 25 percent).
Jain justifies paying cash for land by pointing out that the R&R policy of the government did not make it binding to provide ‘land in lieu of land’ as it qualified this by saying that land would be given “as far as possible”.
Simply put, SMHPCL used the leeway granted by the phrase “as far as possible” to deny land to all. (The phrase “as far as possible” was added in the R&R policy in 2003. Until then, ‘land in lieu of land’ was mandatory, as in the case of the Sardar Sarovar project on the Narmada.)
It may be pointed out that the supreme court recently dismissed such a plea of the Madhya Pradesh government to deny land to the oustees of the Omkareshwar project, another run-of-the-river project on the Narmada. The apex court said: “The submission raised on behalf of the state that it had been impossible for authorities to acquire/purchase the land cannot be accepted as this is a pure question of fact and in absence of any material to show that any attempt had ever been made to acquire the land to rehabilitate the oustees, such a submission remains unsubstantiated.”
It went on to add: “The phrase ‘as far as possible’ would come into play in case an attempt is made to acquire/purchase land and then to make allotment of land to oustees.” But not when the state made no such effort.
The court explained why land must be given in lieu of land. It said “assured possession (of land) is a lasting source for peace and prosperity” and that the right of the farmer to cultivation is a “part of right to livelihood” and thus, “deprivation of right to livelihood under Article 21 is unsustainable”. About the tribals, it said: “In the process of development, the state cannot be permitted to displace tribal people, a vulnerable section of our society, suffering from poverty and ignorance, without taking apporporiate remedial measures of rehabilitation.”
The apex court directed that even in the case of shortage of land, two hectares of land “must” be given to the oustees belonging to the scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and marginal farmers.
In the case of Maheshwar project, the victims of private sale-deeds are mostly marginal farmers and tribals (24 villages in Maheshwar tehsil come under notified tribal area), who stare at an uncertain future once their home and land is submerged. A tour of the project-affected area throws up several such cases.
Ram Chandra Rathod, 40-year-old resident of Pathrakhurd village, owned half an acre of agricultural land, which he sold off in 1999 for Rs 76,000. He repaid his debts and got his younger brother married with the money. Now, he has to survive by working at others’ farmland as a labourer. Had the R&R policy been implemented he would have got two hectares of agriculture land. Now he says he doesn’t know what fate has in store for him.
Jairam Karma of the same village sold off his entire six acre of land coming under submergence, at the rate of Rs 1.3 lakh an acre, and distributed the money among his four brothers and a sister. He kept his share in the bank as he couldn’t get suitable land to buy and now works as a farm labour. Others like Chhatar Singh of Sulgaon village are wiser. He sold off his two-acre land and bought three acres of farm land with the money at a place 25 km away where his uncle lives.
Shockingly, while admitting the scope for exploitation and violation of their fundamental rights, the Madhya Pradesh high court, which stopped SMHPCL’s buying spree, didn’t reverse the process. Or asked the government and the SMHPCL to give land in lieu of land to those families who sold off their land. It merely asked the government to acquire the rest of the land, 290 hectares, in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act of 1894.
Thereafter, acquisition notices were sent to the rest of the oustees. Meanwhile, acquisition notices for ‘abadi’ (homestead land) were also issued.
The state government has been equally callous in its attitude. There is sufficient evidence to show that no attempt was made to acquire and distribute land to the oustees. N K Trivedi, superintendent engineer of Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board, who is the point-man of the government overseeing R&R work of the project, agrees that no land was available for allotment in lieu of land but, in the same breath, adds that nobody came to demand it. “They may have done so collectively, no individual came to us. They have to make demands to us (for land) individually,” he says when it is pointed out that about 500 farmers have petititioned for land.
Poor R&R
Work on the project is complete to the extent of 98.4 percent at present, according to SMHPCL. The dam has been built, only five spillway gates needs to be installed, for which permission was granted by environment minister Jairam Ramesh on May 6. He had stopped all work on the dam in April 2010 precisely because of poor R&R.
As per the condition of the environmental clearance, R&R should proceed “pari passu” with construction. Therefore, R&R work should have been completed to that extent by now. The company claims to have completed 70 percent of work. Ramesh dismissed this in his May 6 order saying it was “not at all convincing”.
A visit to the area shows SMHPCL’s claims are highly exaggerated. Even the basic work like survey to identify houses and land of the oustees is in progress. Even in Jalud village, acquired in 1999, scores of villagers are desperate that they have been left out in the survey. Chirakhan village in Maheshwar tehsil (with about 100 households) was surveyed only last March and were officially told what they have been dreading for more than 10 years – their village will submerge completely.
The backwater survey, on the basis of which properties in 11 villages are to be acquired, has just been completed but not made public. Acquisition process has, thus, not even started.
Most of the villages received notices for acquisition of their ‘abadi’ (homestead) land in the last two years. The notified tribal villages are strongly protesting against the move. As a result, most villagers are yet to get the compensation.
The resettlement and rehabilitation of the oustees is equally tardy. Of 18 rehabilitation sites to be developed, land has not been acquired for four. Only 559 of the 8,903 project-affected families (PAFs) have shifted to the rehabilitation sites. Thus, it will take years before the oustees are actually resettled.
As for providing them a source of livelihood, there is little on offer, except the monetary support the R&R policy provides for (see box). When asked about it, Trivedi said 150 youths were given training at ITI in Punasa and sewing centres were run in a handful of villages (he counted three) which are now closed. He had no idea how many actually benefitted.
So much for promoting the private sector for ‘inclusive’ growth. n
prasanna@governancenow.com
***
Boxes
Rehab status
* Families shifted to rehab sites (of a total of 8,903 PAFs): 559 (Jalud: All 299, Pitamli: 92 of 167 allotted, Lepa: 163 of 482 allotted and Raver: 5 of 24)
* Number of housing plots required for shifting oustees: 7,678
* Number of housing plots available so far: 3,267
* Number of plots allotted: 1,978
* Rehabilitation sites for four villages (of 18 required) not yet acquired
* 290 hectare of people’s land yet to be acquired
* Most of the oustees are yet to get paid for house and other assets they will be losing
***
What oustees are getting
1. Compensation for houses ranges from Rs 35,000 to Rs 17 lakh
2. No land for land. Land prices given: Up to 25 percent higher than market price, claims SMHPCL
3. Rehab grants to an oustee (as per R&R policy):
Landless labourer : Rs 18,700
Landowning SC/ST: Rs 18,700
Small/marginal farmer: Rs 18,700
Others: Rs 9,350
Transport allowance: Rs 5,000
4. Cash compensation in case housing plot is surrendered: Rs 75,000 (including Rs 25,000 special grant by SMHPCL)
5. Livelihood grant to purchase productive assets to
SC/ST families : Rs 49,300
Landless : Rs 33,150
No comments:
Post a Comment