Congress changed stance on land ordinance for political reasons: Arun Jaitley
New Delhi: Accusing the Congress of changing its position on the Land Bill after the Modi government brought an ordinance, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley on Tuesday said the 2013 law passed by the previous UPA dispensation is now in force and Centre would permit states to make amendments to the Central law.
In an article 'The Land Ordinance, The obvious reasons", posted on Facebook, he dubbed the 2013 Act as a "badly drafted legislation" which has "a lot of ambiguities and obvious errors" as the effect of some of its provisions are contrary to the language used therein and "legitimate difficulties" would arise once the Act is implemented.
"It was at the request of the state governments that the amendment to Land Acquisition law of 2013 was issued. However, after the issuance of the Ordinance, the Congress Party changed its position and wanted to oppose the Ordinance for political reasons," he said.
Jaitley said the Ordinance was re-issued twice but political stalemate continued and the Bill requiring amendment is pending before a Parliamentary Standing Committee.
Noting that the objective of the 2015 Ordinance was to give a certain amount of flexibility to states as they know their requirements best, he said it was made available to them after the decision taken in Chief Ministers' meeting held under the aegis of NITI Aayog.
Jaitley said the Prime Minister had convened a meeting of Chief Ministers where they expressed the view that some flexibility should be given to states if the stalemate at the Centre continues and that states should be empowered to bring their own amendments.
"The 2013 Act occupies the field. The Bill remains for consideration of the Standing Committee and, if some consensus suggestions are made, the same would be implemented. That if any state wishes to make some amendments in the Central law, the same would be permitted by the Central Government," he said.
The Finance Minister also defended the notification under Section 105 of the 2013 Act exempting 13 legislations listed in Schedule IV of the Act from applicability of provisions of the law as they were exempted from consent and social impact assessment provisions as also the provisions of additional compensation, relief and rehabilitation.
Jaitley said the amendments to the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 allows the States to provide for any or all of the five purposes and exempt the consent and the social impact assessment provisions.
The Ordinance, which lapsed on August 31, therefore, left it to the wisdom of the States as to whether they wanted to notify any of the five exempted purposes. The position in the Ordinance remains unchanged.
"The object of the 2015 Ordinance was to give certain amount of flexibility to States. They know their requirements the best. That flexibility is made available to the States even now under the decision taken in Chief Ministers' meeting," he said, adding that the State governments were still empowered to decide.
"I am of the opinion that the 2013 Act is badly drafted legislation. It has lot of ambiguities and obvious errors. The effect of certain provisions of this Act is contrary to the language used therein. A series of legitimate difficulties would arise once the Act is seriously implemented.
"The provisions of the Act would also prevent the development of the rural areas through rural infrastructure and further prevent job opportunities created in those areas by industrialisation. This was the principal object of Central Government when the Ordinance to amend the Act was issued on December 31, 2014," he said.
The Finance Minister said the language in provisions of 2013 Act run contrary to each other and this "ambiguity" is required to be corrected even as he rejected Congress argument that the 2015 ordinance has "snatched away" the mandatory consent of farmers before land is acquired.
He said no consent was required for projects relating to national security, infrastructure, agro-processing, industrial corridors, water harvesting, government-aided educational institutions, sports and tourism facilities, rehabilitation project, affected families, housing projects and planned development of villages.
Jaitley said language in Sections 2(1) and 2(2) of 2013 Act run contrary to each other, indicating confusion in the mind of draftsperson with regard to non-applicability of the consent provisions.
Arguing that provisions relating to social impact assessment and various steps to be taken required a large timetable which taken together could go up to several years, he said, 2013 Act required entire acquired land to be utilised within five years as townships cannot be completed in time.
"Since some key corrections were required in the badly drafted legislation, most of the state governments represented to the present Central Government in 2014 that these amendments should immediately be carried out," he said.
Jaitley said states were fully empowered to amend the 2013 Land Law and seek Presidential assent before amendments could be effected and one State had already brought amendments and some others were likely to follow.
"The States can provide for alternative mechanism which balances the interests of farmers and also provides for land required for acquisition," he said.
