A Parliamentary panel has called for the rigorous implementation of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARR Act)
Share
NEW DELHI — A Parliamentary panel has called for the rigorous implementation of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARR Act), particularly in the Scheduled Areas, and raised concerns over violations of the Act’s provisions.
In a report tabled in Parliament this week, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, chaired by Congress MP Saptagiri Sankar Ulaka, expressed concern that despite the existence of statutory provisions, there continues to be violations in practice, such as undervaluation of land, particularly in the Scheduled Areas, where market transactions are restricted.
Scheduled Areas refer to regions with a large tribal population, designated under the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution, granting special governance for tribal welfare.
The report also expressed concern over “delayed or superficial Gram Sabha consultations without proper documentation or availability of materials in the local language, exclusion of women and vulnerable groups from the consultation process, and mechanical issuance of compliance certificates without genuine engagement with the affected communities”.
The report, which was tabled in Parliament on December 18, pointed out the important role of Gram Sabhas in the LARR Act, and said there are growing incidents where the consent of the Gram Sabha is obtained on paper just as a formality, without actually involving the majority of the population being affected by the respective projects.
The report said the committee has been informed about many instances where forest land is being acquired in violation of the provisions of the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006, adding that a linkage between the LARR Act and the FRA is essential to safeguard forest communities' right to land and resources.
The panel said that in some cases, social impact assessment (SIA) and environment impact assessment (EIA) are being carried out just as a formality, with the reports favouring the acquisitions.
It also said that while the Act says land value must be worked out fairly, in some instances, the circle rates are old or set low, so the base value is weak.
“Distress sale deeds drag prices down… There are very few proper sale deeds, so the ‘market value’ does not reflect the real worth,” it said.
Besides, common resources that keep the tribal families alive – grazing land, community forest resource areas, sacred groves, water sources, shifting cultivation patches, paths to collect bamboo, honey, fuelwood, fodder, medicinal plants, wild foods, etc. – are left out, it said.
The panel also questioned the functioning of the National Monitoring Committee (NMC), and said its periodic review of projects, such as the Ken-Betwa Link and Polavaram, has not been able to quell the discontent among the settlers.
It expressed serious concern that despite such institutional mechanisms, there has been no significant reduction in grievances relating to land acquisition, compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement, especially in the context of large-scale inter-basin river linking projects.
“These projects, including the Ken-Betwa, involve diversion of water across ecological and social boundaries, requiring acquisition or diversion of forest land, riverine habitats, floodplains, and community resources,” the panel said.
It pointed out deficiencies such as segment-by-segment acquisition without a single basin-wide cumulative social, hydrological and ecological assessment, late consultation with the Gram Sabhas and without full documentation.
In Lakshadweep, it said, there are instances where proposals have proceeded on the claim that because the foreshore reef flat beach or lagoon edge is government land, its taking or enclosure does not amount to acquisition affecting people.
The committee said it disagrees with this view, and the Act expressly protects livelihood dependents on government and common land.
It also called for the recognition of livelihood users in Greater Nicobar.
“All people whose primary livelihood depends on Great Nicobar's forests, coasts, creeks, beaches, reef flats and common paths are treated as ‘affected families’ under Section 3(c) of the Act even where the land is recorded as government or forest land,” it said.
The report quoted a non-official witness, who said “forested lands reserved for the Shompen (PVTG) and Nicobarese (ST) communities are being de-notified for commercial use under the 'Holistic Development of Great Nicobar Island' project”.
Civil society groups the panel met during a field visit to Sri Vijay Puram said over 131 sq km of forest land and 84 sq km of the tribal reserve will be destroyed, severely impacting the indigenous Shompen (PVTG) and Nicobarese (ST) communities.
Submissions by experts in Odisha said arbitrary processes have been adopted by the district administrations of Rayagada and Kalahandi for land acquisition for the Sijimali bauxite mines, including diversion of forestlands, village common lands, and holding “fake” Gram Sabhas.