Land Acquisition Act 2013

The Land Acquisition Act of 2013 has been in effect since January 1, 2014, so why are farmers still seeking its implementation? What are the key features of Act? Here’s what you need to know.

The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013, also known as the Land Acquisition Act, 2013, was enacted by the Centre to replace the Land Acquisition Act of 1894.

The Act establishes a modern framework for land acquisition, guaranteeing fair compensation and rehabilitation for families affected by such acquisitions. It came into effect on January 1, 2014, with some amendments made in 2015. However, the protesting farmers claim that the Act is not being implemented in its letter and spirit.

Fair compensation and consent requirements are the key features of the Act. Landowners are entitled to compensation that is twice the market value in urban areas and four times the market value in rural areas.

Additionally, consent is required from 70% of the affected families for Public-Private Partnership (PPP) projects, and 80% consent is needed for land acquisition by private companies.

For irrigated multi-cropped land, acquisition is restricted beyond limits specified by the state governments. If such fertile land is acquired, the government must develop an equal size of wasteland for agricultural purposes.

If an individual is dissatisfied with an award under the Act, they can approach the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement (LARR) Authority for redressal.

The Act requires a Social Impact Assessment (SIA) to evaluate the social, environmental, and economic effects of land acquisition.

It also provides for Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R), which includes entitlements for affected families such as:

📍A house for displaced families.
📍Financial assistance for livelihood loss.
📍Employment or annuity-based income for dependent families.
📍Infrastructure development, such as roads, schools, and healthcare facilities, in resettlement areas.

The Act defines “public purpose” to prevent arbitrary land acquisitions, which includes infrastructure projects, urbanisation, and industrial corridors. If land is not used for its intended purpose within five years, it must be returned to the original owners or placed in a land bank.

Notably, certain projects, such as those related to defence, railways, and atomic energy, are exempt from the Act; however, compensation and R&R provisions still apply. Transparency is ensured through public hearings and access to SIA reports. Additionally, the Act mandates extra benefits and consultation processes for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs).

According to experts, the Act faces several challenges in its implementation that make full implementation of the Act difficult. Some of the challenges are:

📍Procedural requirements often delay land acquisition for development projects

📍Compensation costs can put a strain on both public and private project budgets

📍Balancing development needs with social justice remains a contentious issue

Due to the necessity of consolidating their position in India, the British realised the importance of standardising the revenue collection system. They had been negotiating various settlements with different sections of the peasantry across different regions. By the time of Independence, three main types of land tenure had existed, namely, the zamindari system, the ryotwari system, and the mahalwari system.

Under the zamindari system, land was owned by zamindars (landlords) who were solely responsible for paying land revenue. The actual cultivation of the land was carried out by tenants who were under the control of absentee landlords. There were two types of zamindari systems.

(i) In the first type, known as the permanent settlement, the revenue to be paid by the landlords was fixed and remained constant. In this system, landlords primarily provided supervision of the land, while tenants managed the cultivation and performed all the labor. This system was prevalent in regions such as Orissa, Bengal, Banaras, and parts of Madras.

(ii) The second type of zamindari system involved revenue payments by landlords that were revised periodically. This system was found in areas like the central provinces of Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, and the Central Provinces (C.P.).

In this system, land was owned and cultivated by the cultivators, who were also known as owners or peasant proprietors. The state maintained control over the ryots (farmers). Land revenue was assessed for each individual holding, and the ryot was responsible for the payment of this revenue. Settlements regarding land revenue under this system were temporary.

The ryotwari system was introduced by Captain Read and Thomas Munro in 1792 in the district of Bara Mahal. Later, this system was extended to Bombay, Assam, and Bihar.

In this system, land was collectively owned by the village community but cultivated by individuals. The village community was responsible for collecting and paying revenue to the state.

This system primarily existed in Punjab, Agra, and Awadh. Under the Mahalwari System, the village was divided into mahals, which were distinct areas designated for the payment of land revenue.