Land Acqisition Act Amendment

To:- Shri Manmohan Singh Ji 23-March-2007
Prime Minister of India,
Government of India, 7- Race Course Road New Delhi
Land Acquisition Act –1894-Amendment
Copy to:-
1.-Mr.Hansraj Bharadwaj The Honorable
Minister of Law, Government of India,
Ministry of Law & Justice
4th floor, A-wing, Shastri Bhawan
New Delhi.-110001

2:-The Law Commission of India Through
Member Secretary Law Commission of India 7th Floor, A-Wing, Shastri Bhawan
New Delhi-110001




4:-Mr Buddhadeb Bhattacharya
Chief Minister of west Bengal
Kolkatta- West Bengal

6.Senior Advocate Shri Vijai Bahadur Singh
Beli Road Allahabad for guidance, fine-tuning the document & forwarding to Mr V.P. Singh ex P.M


3:-Dr Raghuvansh Prasad Singh
Minister of the Department of Rural Development, Government of India
Krishi Bhawan-New Delhi-
5.-Smt SoniaGandhi
10-Janpath New Delhi
for suitable action but not for merely forwarding it to others












Dear Sirs:
The Incidents of Nandigram & Dadri & Singur Land Acquisition must be fresh in your minds and it is possible that they may have pricked your conscience. As promised by my letter dated 28-02-07 (un acknowledged) I am sending some recommendations regarding amendment to the land Acquisition Act-1894. the amendments relate to only those Sections of the Land Acquisition Act, about which I feel my research has given me the Right to express my views. The other Sections, I have not touched as my knowledge about them is scanty please fine tune & correct the recommendations & do with them as you please. The Annexure is priceless.
Thanking You
Yours Sincerely



(Robby Sharma)
865, Block-B, Panki Kanpiur-208020
Proposed Amendment in the Land Acquisition Act-1894
The Amendment in the Land Acquisition Act-1894 has become necessary due
to the following reasons:
Reasons & Lacunae
1.All over the Country there is widespread outcry & unrest with regard to the Acquisition of Land for public purposes. The reason is that after the British left India , The Collector as well as the Government departments are not going about Land Acquisition in a fair manner and at the same time a highly partial Judiciary
(virtually another arm of the executive) is working to the detriment of the general public & they are misusing all laws & in particular, the Land Acquisition Act in
their own vested interests. It is submitted that all legislation in India was based on
the principle that those implementing it will be absolutely fair & that is why most of the legislations are failing presently because the implementing agencies are found to be wanting in honesty & fair play hence if any legislation in India is to succeed then, while framing it, it should be kept in mind that the implementing agency is most likely to be totally corrupt & therefore for this purpose necessary safeguards & penal provisions to punish the implementing Agency have to be inbuilt in the legislation. We should also keep in mind that the British were having 500 years of Lawmaking experience when they started making Laws for India & in fact they had come across hundreds of problems during the course of the implementation of the Laws & also found answers to most of them over the years. Therefore we should not be ashamed of drawing from their experience just as a student learns from a teacher it would be naïve to think that if we followed the British then it would be slavish mentality. I have seen many Constitutional Lights of India, Senior Advocates & retired Judges of The Supreme Court openly admit in front of the Camera that they found trouble with the laws made after independence rather than those which were made before it. No doubt with the changing world & circumstances, slight amendments need to be made in these laws to bring them up to the mark & all laws have to be continuously monitored or they are most likely to turn into a monster and devour the citizens an example of the Town Planning restrictions which are now, instead of, regulating the dwellings, are presently acting in denial of the same to the needy masses.
2. That although in Uttar Pradesh as well as in other States, Landowners have for perpetuity enjoyed the right to build a house of their choice on their lands & these are common law rights but later on only building restrictions were applied to prevent haphazard development, in public interest as such the Citizens never derived these Common law rights under the Town Planning Acts ( as the lands were not allotted to them under these Acts) but the Government/Authority has brought in restrictions which are taking away the right to utilize the lands for a reasonable profitable use. The Landowners although enjoy the status of a Bhumidhar with transferable Rights & as per U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act-1950 Section-142-A Bhumidar with transferable Rights , shall subject to the Provisions of this Act, have the Right to exclusive possession of all the Land of which he is the Bhumidar & to Use it for any purpose whatsoever. & the revenue Authorities upon suo moto notice or upon receiving an application, simply under Section-143 simply record the land as non agricultural if the owner puts it to other non agricultural/ building uses & then it is subject to personal law of the owner. That there fore the Bhumidars of these Lands have preexisting Rights & in fact the settlers of lands have enjoyed Rights in land since times immemorial & have not derived these Rights through the U. P. Urban Planning & development Act-1973 which also vide proviso to Section-7 says “that the Authority has to comply with the other laws in force, also there is no repeal of the U.P.Z.A Act in the U.P Urban Planning & Development Act-1973, nor it can be imagined that The Landmark Agrarian reforms can be brought to an end simply for some Urban Act. Even then highly unreasonable restriction of 10 years for using the land for profitable purposes has been imposed by Section-54 of U.P. Urban Act-1973 & it can not be said to be reasonable in view of the fact that by Section-17 of the Urban Act, the Authority has been obliged to complete its Schemes within five years. That the U. P .Zamindari Abolition & Land reforms Act 1950 has overriding effect on the U. P. Urban Planning & Development Act-1973 & continue to apply to areas which fall in to Town areas or Municipalities after 7th of July 1949. That as per Section-54 of the U. P. Urban Planning & Development Act-1973, Land if left in the Master Plan as open or un- built-upon should be acquired within 10 years or otherwise the owner can serve notice upon the State Government to acquire the same & if the State Government fails to acquire in 6 months then the subject land becomes free from restrictions of Master Plan. Recently also the Honorable Supreme Court in the matter of Balakrishna. H. Sawant & Ors vs. Sangli, Miraj & Kupwad City Municipal Corporation & Ors reported in 2005(2) SCALE 420, (2005) 3 SCC 61 & in Appeal (Civil) 8274-8275 of 2003, judgment dated 05/05/2005 of Division Bench of Justice Ashok Bhan & Justice A.K. Mathur in the matter of Raju.s Jethmalani & Ors vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors,reported in (2005)11 SCC222, the Principle laid down was that in the case of land of private person, if required by master-plan to be left open/un-built-upon, the State has to acquire within reasonable time & the owner can not be denied from the most fruitful use of his land for indefinite period & if the State Government does not acquire the land in a reasonable period then the reservation of land in master plan ceases and the owner can utilize the land for his desired legal purpose. That similar provisions of Reservation for ten years are there in Gujrat Town Planning act-1976 [Section-20 (1) & (2)] & this probably started under Delhi Development Authority Act-1957 (on which U. P. Act is based as per objects & reasons), Section-55-Plans to stand modified in certain cases—(1)-Where any land situated in any area in Delhi is required by the Master Plan or Zonal Development Plan to be kept as an Open Space or un-built upon or is designated in any such plan as subject to compulsory acquisition, then if at the expiration of ten years from the date of operation of the plan,-------------------the land is not compulsorily acquired the owner of the land may serve upon the Central Government to acquire his interest in the Land to be acquired .(2)---On failure by Government to so acquire the Land within six months, the Reservation of Land in Master Plan for Open Space or un-built-upon or subject to acquisition ceased & owner was free to use it for any legal purpose. In the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning act-1966 , analogous Section-127 is there whereto Reservation is confined to ten years during which land has to be acquired or the reservation ceases.(AIR 1988 Supreme Court-233), Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Appl V/s Dr Hakimwadi Tenants Association & Others. The Goa , daman & Diu Town & Country Planning Act-1974 goes a step forward & section-35 provides-Public notice of the preparation of the Development Plan- -(1)-As soon as may be after the approval of the Government is obtained under Section-34, the Planning & Development Authority shall publish by notification & also in one or more local newspapers of the preparation of the Development Plan, indicating therein the place or places where copies of the same may be inspected. and inviting objections in writing……………….(2)----The publication of notification under subsection-(1) shall not with standing any thing contained in the Land acquisition Act-1894 be deemed to be a notification duly made under section-4 of the said Act.Section- -36---provides for approval of Development Plan by the Government; Section-37-(2) –The publication by notification of the approval of the Development Plan shall not with standing anything in Land Acquisition Act-1894 be deemed to be a declaration under Section-6 of the said Act.
3. That thus it is clear that when Section-55 in the D.D.A Act-1957 was inserted there was no limitation between the Section-4(1) notification of the Land Acquisition Act-1894 & the making of the declaration under section-6 nor for award under Section-11 & at that time this ten years period of reservation was inserted. Later on in 1963, Section-4 to Section-6 limitation came in & in 1984, the limitation of one year between Section-4 & section-6 came & also two years between Section-6 & making of award thus three years in all between initiation of Land Acquisition proceedings under Section-4 & making of award. All the above Acts of the States have not kept pace with the Central Legislation.The very purpose of its amendment was to ensure that owner of any land is not deprived of the enjoyment of his land for any uncertain period of time & if it has to be acquired then it should be done by giving the market rate+ 30 % & that too within 3 years of initiation. Thus the reservation of land as per the Goa Act now technically lapses after three years of the Draft Development Plan & two years after final notification of approved plan & this can be said to be the most reasonable restrictive provision under any Town Planning Act of any State but the joke is that they do not even know it. That therefore Section-17 of the U. P. Urban Planning & Development Act which provides that after five years have elapsed after acquisition of land of a person & the land remains unutilized then the said person shall be returned the land if the State Government is satisfied that indeed it has remained unutilized. Before this when Improvement Schemes were made under Municipal Corporation Acts, they were supposed to be completed within five years while in the present case private land owners are not allowed to even start building on their lands for more than ten years Therefore in all these Acts, the Reservation of Land (unless Acquired), for open purposes should not be there for a unreasonable periods & any thing above 2-3 years can not be said to be reasonable & the result is that officers of Government /Development authorities are making billions of rupees in bribes at the time of making of master Plan & those as are unwilling are punished by reserving their lands for un built upon or Open Purposes & thus they have to wait agonizingly for at least ten years & six months which actually is a lifetime. Actually all Town Planning Laws at present in India just achieve one Object & that is to deny the basic right of shelter to its Citizens that is why Land price has risen more than thousand fold in the last forty years although price all other necessities have risen by ten to thirty times.
4---That In the matter of Shiv Kumar Chadha V/S Municipal Corporation of Delhi as reported in (1993) 3 SCC 161 a three Judges Bench of the Honorable Apex Court in paragraph 28 has laid down the principle that ---“The common law right of the Citizens to erect or construct buildings of their choice has existed since time immemorial & subsequently only Urban Laws have imposed certain restrictions on this common law right therefore the Court will have the jurisdiction to investigate any procedural lapses in order to protect this common law right.” In view of this neither the State Government nor the Union Government has any right to hoist any unreasonable restrictions over the common law rights of the members of the Society. In a House of Lords Appeal It was observed by Lord Denning in the case of Pyx Granite Co. Ltd v Ministry of Housing and Local Government: [1960 AC 260] “Although the planning authorities
are given very wide ranging powers to impose ‘such conditions as they think fit’ nevertheless the law says-------------- The planning authority are not at liberty to use their powers for an ulterior object, however desirable that object may seem to them to be in the public interest.”

In view of the above, the following principles should be applicable in all cases of Town Planning
1. The Government/Approving Authority does not have an uncontrolled discretion to impose whatever conditions it likes.
2. The Government/Approving authority must act reasonably and planning conditions must be reasonable.
3. The Government/Approving authority is not at liberty to use its power for an ulterior object, however desirable that object may seem to it in the public interest.
4. They should bear in mind avowed official policy to promote development, to provide as much housing as possible (“property-owning democracy”). that promptness in approval enables purchasers to acquire property and homes at more or less current prices, that delay in approval, on the other hand, apart from causing dissatisfaction and breeding corruption, leads to delay in completion of projects and forces purchasers to pay prices swollen over time by inflation, and hinders National Development.
5--I can add hundreds of sentences to this matter but for the moment the above will suffice. Now coming back to the subject of the Land Acquisition Act-1894
6--In the First place the definition of the word “Benefits” in Section 3 of the L.A. Act i e.-“the expression “land” includes “Benefits to arise out of the land,” needs to be understood in its true context. Land can not merely be treated as land which can be left to the whims & fancies of State Governments to legislate. It is actually a property and although the FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to which as contained in Article-19, 31 is no longer there but in majority of the cases like the land of the farmer, Land is not merely Land but the very source of Occupation & livelihood of the entire family of all the Co proprietors of that Land. Thus taking of his land within ceiling limits means the taking away of the Occupation & Livelihood of all the families therefore Article 21 of the Constitution is attracted thus reasonable means of Occupation & livelihood of the effected families has to be ensured before any land is Acquired. Even in the various Land Reform Acts of the fifties, wherein rights of Zamindars were abolished, even then their Khudkasht or Land under personal cultivation within ceiling limits was not affected. Therefore for this purpose it would be safe to assume that each parcel of Agricultural land comprising in a holding of a proprietor gives occupation to at least four members of his family & if there are more than one proprietor than the family of all Co proprietors are occupied in the same manner & depend for their livelihood on that Land.
7--That in addition to the proprietors, millions of Landless Agricultural Laborers also depend for their livelihood on these Lands. Therefore the total Land of the Village & population dependent on the land has to be kept in mind before going in for any kind of Land Acquisition.
8--It is all the more surprising that the land owners dread the Acquisition of Land by the Government Authorities in spite of the fact that often the Compensation eventually paid by the Government proves to be much higher than the rate at which the same Land owners are happy to part with their lands to private buyers. Again the reason is a highly corrupt Administrative Machinery (Collectors Office) entrusted with the task of Acquisition & declaring the Compensation, & they are so notorious that generally the Collector declares the Compensation which is only a fraction of the actual market rate,(In their judgment dated 24-05-1999, even the Supreme Court in the matter of K. Narendra V/S Riviera Apartments was forced to admit that “generally the Collector gives award of less than the market price”. You are not likely to come across a single case in a million in which the Collectors award is not increased by the Reference Court. The Courts have in their Judgments openly caste their doubts on the integrity of the Collectors,. In State of Karnataka V/S Laxman, in their Judgment dated 25-10-2005, a three Judges bench of the Supreme Court has passed a general Observation (not confined to the case in hand) that sometimes applications are clandestinely received long after in back dates. In thousands of cases it has been found by the Courts that false papers are prepared to show the taking over of possession although no actual possession has been taken please refer to (1998) 6 SCC 1,Om Prakash & Anr V/s State of U.P. & Ors, para-31. In yet another Judgment by the three Judges of the Supreme Court, in the case of Balwant Narayan Bhagle V/S M. D. Bhagwat & Ors (1975)SCC(1)700 it has been held that although notice for taking possession is not mandatory but it is “desirable to do so in order to eliminate the possibility of a fraudulent or collusive transaction of taking of a mere paper Possession” .Yet in thousands of cases it has been found that proper service of notices has not been made & in thousands of cases it has been found that Inquiry said to have been held under Section-5-A was simply a farce. Now such a thing (such actions of so high an officer as a district Collector) would be unimaginable under the British but under the present set up even the highest Government Officer has turned in to a Lutiya Chor ( petty thief).
9--In spite of the Observations made by some Judges of the High Courts & Supreme Courts, the fact remains that the majority of these Judges (about-99%) are totally biased against the general public in Civil matters involving the Government & particularly in Land Acquisition matters & are mostly overlooking & thus in fact encouraging the illegalities being committed by the Administrative officers in Land Acquisition cases & the Administrative Officers sit cozy knowing fully well that no matter whatever wrong they commit , no body is going to punish them.
10--Out of all the Supreme Court Judges, the most notorious name which comes to mind is that of K.RAMASWAMY whose mindless decisions given to favor the Government & against the Landowners has virtually turned the Land Acquisition Act in to a monster which it most certainly was not. Out of the many such decisions given by Benches headed by him some have been overturned by the Constitution Benches of the Supreme Court like that which delivered its Judgment in the case of Padama Sundara Rao V/s State of Tamil Nadu AIR 2002 SC 1334 turned down the longstanding stupid three Judges Judgments in the case of N. Narasimahiah vs. State of Karnataka (1996)3 SCC88 & State. For the Judgment in the Padamasundara Rao case to be entrusted to the Constitution bench, it was pure luck of the landowners that one Advocate knew about a three Judges Bench judgment in a unreported case of A.S. Naidu and Ors v/s.State of Tamil Nadu in {SLP(C) No’s11353-11355/1988, which became the basis to challenge the Narsimaiah case & the N Nanjudaiha case.(It is surprising that this A.S. Naidu case was kept hidden from the public by the Supreme Court, who never allowed it to be reported as it is most likely that that Judgment was delivered to please some favored advocate pleading the case before that bench but the bench had no intention to give the benefit of this people friendly rare Judgment to others. This case is still not on the Website of the Supreme Court.)
11--This same Ramaswamy has virtually declared in many of his Judgments that it may be impossible to take actual physical possession under the Land Acquisition Act & that the only way is to take Paper Possession [State of T.N and Anr V/s Mahalakshmi Ammal & Ors (1996) 7 SCC269 para-9; Balmokand Khatri Educational Trust V/s State of O Punjab, (1996) 4 SCC 212, para-4 & other Judgments too] by Panchnama, which are mostly forged by the Collectors Office. Therefore now the status is that Possession is being taken of buildings without noting down any details in fact the buildings are not even mentioned instead only the land is mentioned & the owners are not even in a position to procure compensation for the costly fittings, wood etc used in the Construction because the Collector could always say that they were not there at all. It is true that the owner may protest the taking of possession but for that there is the Police help etc if required now what is happening that there is no attempt by the Authorities to even go to the site to take the possession & armed with such Judgments they are simply taking paper possession of hundreds of hectares of land in a single day & that too in back dates to counter any stay orders.
12--A three Judge Bench in Prem Nath Kapur & anr. vs. National Fertilizers Corporation of India Ltd. & ors. {1996 (2) SCC 71}, another three Judge Bench (K. Ramaswamy, S. Saghir Ahmad and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ) in Yadavrao P. Pathade vs. State of Maharashtra {1996 (2) SCC 570}. Learned Judges made a reference to the observation of the two Judge Bench in Periyar & Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. (supra) to the effect that solatium is the component forming the compensation mentioned in Section 23 of the Act and hence interest would accrue on it. Nonetheless learned Judges dissented from the view in Periyar & Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. by stating that "unfortunately neither the provisions of the Act were considered nor the distinction of the provisions had been brought to the notice of the court at that time." The Bench upheld the view that there is no legal warrant for awarding interest on solatium . Now this stupid Judgment too had to be overturned by Constitution bench Judgment dated September 19, 2001.by the Constitution Bench in Sunder V/S Union of India case.
13--In Abhey Ram (dead) by Lrs & Ors V. union of India & others reported in (1997) 5 SCC 421 it was held by another three Judge Bench headed by the same Gentleman.K. Ramaswamy that a stay order obtained by one will operate against all while the benefit of quashing of section-6 will apply only to those before the courts. Now this is a preposterous Judgment & against the very spirit of fair play. The Higher Judiciary has been given powers to take Suo Moto notice of any injustice meted out to the poorer/ignorant sections of the Society (which most of the Landowners under the L. A. Act 1894 are that is why such benefic sections such as Section 28-A are there in the first place) therefore it is the duty of the Courts when they notice some irregularities or illegalities in any action of the State which hurts the rights of innocent/gullible/ignorant & poor class of people to pass on the benefit of their orders passed, in the cases of those who are capable to challenge such actions before them, to those sections also who by ignorance or due to force of social or financial circumstances are not able to do so. As against this they the Courts by their partial(in favor of the ruling class) judgments are not only denying the benefits to the innocent & needy but also penalizing them for no fault of theirs. Legally also the Judgment of Abhey Ram case which is still followed like a Bible by the Courts including the Supreme Court does not stand for the following reasons:- (A)- Because in that case the High Court below had not restricted the stay orders to the lands qua the writ petitioners while generally in other cases the Courts pass the stay orders qua the writ petitioners only but this is being ignored by the Courts who blindly follow the Abhey Ram Judgment.
(B)- Because in that case in one writ petition the High Court had stayed section 4 - (1) notification as well as section 6 (1) declaration which had not even been made by then i.e. in a mechanical manner while in other cases nothing like this happens but this change in circumstances is being ignored by the Courts who blindly follow the Abhey Ram Judgment.
(C) - Because if Abhey Ram case is taken on its face value then it will mean that the Parliament of India has made a Law which has put an impossible burden on all the land-owners covered by Land Acquisition notification, that they should submit meekly to the L.A. proceedings no matter how illegal & arbitrary the proceedings may be & also ensure that not only should they themselves not obtain any stay order but it will be obligatory upon each & every one of them to ensure that no body else also challenges the same & obtains any stay on any stage of the L.A. proceedings as the folly of one would apply to all.
(D)- Because the word any used in explanation to section 6 (1) of the Land ACQUISITION Act 1894 has not been confined to this section alone but is used in the same context in the benefic Sections 11-A & 23 (1-A) of the Land ACQUISITION Act as such it relates only to any action for example after section 4-(1) notification the court may grant stay of 4-(2) entering upon the land or it may grant stay against 5-A, It may grant stay against making of declaration or stay section 7, section -8 or stay making of award or stay from taking of possession etc. any or all of these actions may be deemed to have been frustrated on a/c of some stay order subject to the respondents holding back their hands but the word any can not apply both to any action as well as to any land also. It can only apply to any action only which relates to the sections of the L.A. Act. Therefore the stay obtained by one against any action may relate to all actions against his land but it can not relate to all the lands of all the persons.
(E) - Because in section 6, the State has been given the power to issue different Declarations for different parcels of Land covered by same Section - 4 (1) Notification. Even the first proviso the Section is about "any particular land" and not all the Lands.
(F) - Because The Courts do not give Stay orders just for the fun of it, they are passed under very compelling circumstances on the basis of prima facii irregularity or on valid grounds affecting the fundamental Rights of the Petitioners.
(G) - Because If the contention of the Delhi High Court cited in Abhey Ram case regarding providing a second innings to the land owners is accepted then it will mean that the Parliament of India has treated all the land owners in any given land acquisition proceedings as a cartel, formed with the sole motive of hampering the Land Acquisition proceedings. The Authorities are left free not only to play a second innings but any number of innings, all they need to do is to allow & encourage one or two of their chosen landowners to obtain a stay order at some stage of the proceedings & then to use it as an excuse against all & sundry, to their own advantage & deny the benefit of the benefic provisions of the Act ; e.g : A stay obtained by one farmer/landowner, against dispossession, after Section-6-(1) declaration will allow them to even deny the Section - 23 - (1-A) benefit to innocent landowners. Therefore the word "any" used in explanation to Section 6 (1) as also in explanation to Section 11-A as also in explanation to Section 23 (1-A), has to refer to the particular land only in relation to which such stay was obtained or in relation to which that particular petitioner has a legal right to maintain a writ i.e. to his own land only. As is clear from phrase "any particular land" used in 1st proviso to Section 6 -(1).
(H) - Because if Abhey Ram case is accepted as the gospel truth without going in to the merits of each & every case then the only alternative left for the innocent land owners who never obtain any stay order in some land ACQUISITION proceeding will be to kidnap the land ACQUISITION OFFICER & force him at GUNPOINT to take possession of his land & issue him with a certificate to this effect. Because other wise the authorities will after 8 or 10 years deny the benefit of section 11-A or 23-(1-A) to him even though he never had any stay order in his favor. Thus even the fault of the courts (not confining the stay orders to a specific land) will be hoisted upon him.
(I) - Because even in the cases under reference in Abhey Ram case in one w. petition the petitioner had sought the clarification from the High court that although he had got stay only against his land yet D.D.A was projecting it as applying to all lands the High court while clarifying said :- "What is there to clarify when the relief sought is for the land of the petitioner, naturally the stay is confined to that". In spite of this clear observation the full bench of the High court as well as Supreme Court ignored this fact & treated as if the stay order was obtained in a Public Interest litigation as such it operated on all.
(J) - Because in a case of compensation relating to land ACQUISITION the Supreme Courts Constitution Bench in the matter of S. Amarjit Singh Kalra (dead) by Lrs & Ors v/s Smt Pramod Gupta (dead) by lrs & or as reported in (2003) 3 SCC 272, AIR 2003 SC 2588. Held that "if there is joint appeal of parties having specific shares then death of one or more will not vitiate the claim of others under the land ACQUISITION ACT". Also held "Merely because Court for its own convenience combined the claims for joint consideration, parties should not be penalized for no fault of their". Also held :- " In case of common decree passed by the Courts in cases where individual rights are clearly distinguishable the decree will not be treated as a joint decree but as a combination of several decrees".
(K) - Because in other cases the Supreme Court has held that a single award passed under section 11 by the Land Acquisition officer is not a joint award but a combination of different awards passed in respect of individual land owners/ interests.
(L) - Because even in case of section 4 (1) notification it can not be treated as a joint notification and it can only be treated as a combination of different notifications applicable to each individual land owner / person affected or on each parcel of land that is why individual notices are mandatory.
(M) - Because section 6 (1) declaration is very specifically applicable on a particular land and it can also only be treated as a combination of several declarations relating to each individual parcel of land that is why there is provision of objections by each individual person interested & hearing as well as a provision in the land Acquisition Act section - 6 for different declarations for different parcels of land. It is open to the State Government to issue different declarations after hearing each individual person interested in relation to the land of such individual. Therefore when the State Government for its own convenience decides to issue a combined declaration it can not use it to penalize the different interest holders (persons having specific shares) for no fault of theirs. Had the Government made different declarations in respect of each land holder/parcel of land then the person affected would have to challenge the one relating to his land / interest only & thus there would be no harm to him on A/c of stay obtained by some body else for some different parcel of land covered by a different declaration relating to the land covered by the same section-4 notification.
(N) - Because the only reason advanced in various cases has been that if the stay is obtained by one then since a Scheme can not be implemented partially as such the authorities hold back their hands. That may be so but for this they can not penalize the innocent. Because in the final Context when the Courts as in the case of Abhey Ram & hundreds of other cases, Quash the land Acquisition proceedings relating to certain lands of that scheme and deny the benefit of quashing to others not before the courts then too the Acquiring Body comes back to square - one i.e. it finally gets only a part of the land therefore the very basis of the excuse of holding back their hands, applying stay by one to all - goes out of the door.
(O) - Because even in the Judgment dated 10.10.2002 of the Supreme Court in the matter of Gangadhar Behera & others v/s State of Orrissa & Ors as reported in 2002 (8) SCC 381 in para 28, Supreme Court has relied upon the Constitution bench Judgment in the matter of Padama Sundara Rao (dead) V/s State of Tamil Nadu & ors & held that "There is always peril in treating words of a Judgment as though they are words in a legislative enactment & it is to be remembered that Judicial utterances are made in the setting of facts of a particular case, circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between Conclusion in two cases".
(P) - Because in large Scale Land Acquisition Proceedings the Authority should be absolutely fair & if they are not, they should be prepared to face some opposition because after all for a farmer it is not merely some land (Property) but the very Occupation /livelihood of all the family members of the farmer & his Co-sharers. The Courts do not grant stay for the fun of it they do it only if there is prima facii sufficient material on record to show any procedural lapses. In the land Acquisition cases it is mostly when the Authorities play a fraud on the persons interested & enact a drama of hearing under section 5-A (2) while actually they did not hold any hearing. The Land Acquisition Act being an Act of eminent domain, the only option to the person affected is by way of 5-A hearing & when that too is denied illegally it is then & only then that the Courts interfere. Therefore in the cases in which the Authority plays a fraud it should take possession of land not affected by Courts orders & then wait for disposal of Court cases or then and there issue a fresh section - 4 notification. In the former case if they manage to save section - 6 declaration, well & good otherwise they have to issue new section - 4 notification after the disposal of cases by courts for these lands, there is no other alternative.
(Q) - Because otherwise if even after playing a fraud on the landowners, the Authority is allowed to usurp the land of innocent landowners, it will mean allowing a CRIMINAL TO RETAIN & ENJOY THE FRUITS OF his CRIME. Therefore a Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court needs to look in to the Abhey Ram Judgment & in fact to scrutinize all Judgments in which K Ramaswamy played a part to undo the damage caused by Abhey Ram & similar Judgments. To mitigate the sufferings of millions suffering the ill effects of these Judgments.
14--That Mr K.Ramaswamy has even taken away the Jurisdiction of Civil Courts from interfering in the Land Acquisition matters in spite of the fact that the Act no where says so. Thus in the Judgment in the case of State Of Bihar v Dhirendra Kumar (1995) 4 SCC229; the Supreme Court ruled that a civil court has no jurisdiction to go into the question of the validity or legality of the notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act"), except by the High Court in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution (page230). This proposition was reiterated in Laxmi Chand v. Gram Panchayat (1996)7 SCC 218 (page220). In this case it was declared that an aggrieved person has the remedy only under Articles 226 and 136 from the constitutional courts viz. the High Court and the Supreme Court respectively, under their plenary power with self-imposed restraints on their exercise of powers. A perusal of the entire Act reveals that there is no express bar ousting the jurisdiction of the civil court to question the legality of any proceedings under the Act. The Act has referred to "a court", "any court" and "the court" at different places. Let us examine the relevance of these expressions. The expression "court" is defined by Section 3(d) of the Act, which is set out hereunder:
"3. In this Act, unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context,-
(d) the expression 'court' means a Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction, unless the appropriate Government has appointed (as it is hereby empowered to do) a special judicial officer within any specified local limits to perform the functions of the court under this Act;"
It is submitted that the meaning of the expression "court" given under Section 3(d) has to be understood subject to the clause "unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context".
In the context of the limitation provided by the first proviso to Section 6(1) for publication of the declaration from the date of the notification published under Section 4(1), Explanation (1) to Section 6(1) lays down that in computing the period of the said limitation "the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the notification issued under Section 4 sub-section (1) is stayed by an order of a court shall be excluded". Similarly, the Explanation to Section 11-A lays down that in computing the period of two years referred to in that section, "the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the said declaration is stayed by an order of a court shall be excluded". Again the expression "any court" occurs in the Explanation to Section 23(1-A), which relates to payment of 12 per cent interest per annum on the market value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4, sub-section (1), in respect of such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. The Explanation says that
"in computing the period referred to in this sub-section, any period or periods during which the proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction by the order of any court shall be excluded".
It is submitted that Parliament did not intend to cover the District Court exercising its referential jurisdiction within the meaning of "a court" or "any court". For this, it used the expression "the court" in Sections 18(1), 30, 31 and in sub-sections (1) and (1-A) of Section 23, and in other provisions of Part III of the Act. It is submitted that it would be plainly "repugnant in the subject or context", if the general expressions "a court" or "any court" are construed to be the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction, inasmuch as the District Court gets jurisdiction only on a reference duly made under Section 18(1) read with Section 31(2), or under Section 30 of the Act. The District Court does not have any role before the Collector's award is made. Nor does it have jurisdiction to stay proceedings under the provisions of the Act. It follows, therefore, that the expressions "a court" and "any court", which pertain to proceedings before making the award, must mean and include the original court of civil jurisdiction - which is the civil court within the local limits of which the land is situate, as provided under Sections 15 and 16 of the Civil Procedure Code, the appellate court being either the District Court or the High Court, depending upon the value of the suit, and the Supreme Court of India as the ultimate court of appeal. This interpretation is supported by the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. Ltd. v. Broj Nath Ganguly (1986) 3 SCC 156: "While an explanatory and restrictive definition confines the meaning of the word defined to what is stated in the interpretation clause, so that wherever the word defined is used in the particular statute in which that interpretation clause occurs, it will bear only that meaning unless where, as is usually provided, the subject or context otherwise requires...."(pages176-177, para-21)(emphasis supplied) The expression "a court" or "any court" may also include in its ambit a High Court where the aggrieved person may challenge the acquisition proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. But, the construction of the general expression "a court" or "any court" cannot be narrowed down to mean only the High Court, inasmuch as under the General Clauses Act, 1897 the expression "High Court" has been defined under Section 3(25) as under:
"3. (25) 'High Court', used with reference to civil proceedings shall mean the highest civil court of appeal (not including the Supreme Court) in the part of India in which the Act or regulation containing the expression operates;"
15. Two other Judgments of K. Ramaswamy were overturned by larger benches, In Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari (1995) 2 SCC 736(page-742, para-9) the appellant relied on the decisions earlier given by K. Ramaswamy and Venkatachala, JJ. in Babua Ram v. State of U.P.((1995) 2 SCC 689 and Union of India v. Karnail Singh (1995) 2 SCC 728 ruling that the expression "award of the court" occurring in Section 28-A(1) meant the "first award made by the court". Disagreeing with this ruling, Agrawal, J. speaking for a three-Judge Bench observed:
"By construing the expression 'where in an award under this Part' in sub-section (1) of Section 28-A to mean 'where in the first award made by the court under this Part', the word 'first', which is not found in sub-section (1) of Section 28-A, is being read therein and thereby the amplitude of the said provision is being curtailed so as to restrict the benefit conferred by it. In the matter of construction of a beneficent provision it is not permissible by judicial interpretation to read words which are not there and thereby restrict the scope of the said provision. (1995) 2 SCC 736(page-742, para-9).
16. It is, also, submitted that another decision of the Supreme Court in Balram Chandra v. State of U.P (1995) 3 SCC 723 rendered by a Division Bench presided over by K. Ramaswamy, J. laying down that the Reference Court has no jurisdiction to declare null and void the proceedings under the Act, with respect, was wrongly decided being per incuriam of Kamakhya Ram Barooah case AIR 1965 SC 1301. which held that The Reference Court can also set aside the acquisition proceedings on the ground of nullity. it was held that if the acquisition proceedings are ultra vires, a civil court, including the Reference Court, has the jurisdiction to set aside the same as being invalid - despite there being an express exclusionary provision that no order passed under the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 shall be called in question in any court of law in Section 11. In contrast to the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 however, there is no ouster clause in the Central Act.
17. In Sushil Kumar Mehta v. Gobind Ram Bohra (1990)1 SCC 193 K. Ramaswamy, J. speaking for a three-Judge Bench has laid down that a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction over the subject-matter or on any other ground which goes to the root of its exercise of jurisdiction or inherent jurisdiction is a nullity and is non est. Its invalidity can be pleaded whenever it is sought to be enforced or is acted upon as a foundation for a right even at the stage of execution or in collateral proceedings (1996) 4 SCC 178(187) Same law has been reiterated by K. Ramaswamy, J. in Urban Improvement Trust v. Gokul Narain, (1996) 4 SCC 178.
This decision shows that nullity of the award can be raised before (a) the Reference Court, or (b) the execution court, or (c) in a collateral proceeding, e.g., in a suit for possession on the grounds that the acquisition proceedings are ultra vires.
18. Therefore the Judgments given by K. Ramaswamy in other matters can be used to demolish his own Illegal & partial Judgments rendered in Land Acquisition cases it is quite clear that K Ramaswamy J. has given very biased & illegal anti people Judgments rendered in Land Acquisition Acts in order to blindly favor the Government.
19. It is therefore clear that in the Land Acquisition Act:-
(a) There is neither an ouster clause nor an implied intendment in the Act ousting the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain a suit. On the contrary, the provisions of Sections 6(1) and 11-A expressly provide for a stay by a court of any action or proceedings to be taken in pursuance of the notification published under Section 4 and the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act. Section 23(1-A) expressly provides for holding up of any of the proceedings by stay or injunction by the order of any court. Besides, Section 52 provides for a suit against any proceeding taken under the Act. Hence, it is crystal clear that a suit lies to set aside the acquisition proceedings as being null and void.
(b) The award is made final by Section 12(1) only with respect to the three factual matters: (i) the area of the land, (ii) the value of the land, and (iii) the apportionment of the compensation between the interested persons. No finality is given to the legality of the award. In a line of decisions rendered in Division Benches as well as Constitution Benches of the Supreme Court, the acquisition proceedings originally challenged by instituting suits in the civil court had been set aside, and the suits were decreed. This signifies the acceptance of the jurisdiction of civil courts in land acquisition matters in India.
20. As such, there is a preponderance of authorities laying down the view that though the aggrieved landowner can directly move the High Court by invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction, he cannot be compelled to do so; besides, it must not be overlooked that the vast majority of the expropriated farmers are ignorant and poor, and as a result, it is not easy for them to take resort to the writ proceedings. On the other hand, filing a suit in the local civil court is relatively an easier proposition for the large majority of the poor expropriated landowners. It is therefore submitted that the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court cannot supersede the common law rights of the expropriated farmers, which are also protected. Some material for paras-14,15,16,17,19,20 taken from article by Senior Advocate of Bombay High Court Mr Arun Kumar Barthakur.
21. That the deliberate delay by the Courts in Land Acquisition matters has to be stopped, cases take even thirty to forty years to be finalized every body knows that that property rates have been increasing in India at the Compounded rate of minimum 25% per annum & cases drag on in Courts for decades, Supreme Court is deciding Compensation cases of thirty years ago, what does the owner get? Only a few rupees per Meter now & for every thousand meters which he lost then he can not even purchase a single meter on the rates prevailing now (when he gets his compensation). It is O.K if the Government acquires land if it really needs some but why should it not be willing to pay the market price.
22. That the Act also does not contain a machinery for restoration of any land, which may be unauthorizedly taken away. It is therefore submitted that the Act is not a complete code by itself & for such purposes the aggrieved party can file a suit in a civil Court but this is now presently impossible due to the foolish & illegal judgments of K Ramaswamy & also why should the Landowner be subjected to a heavy expense & lengthy never ending legal procedure by filing a Court case. Therefore this problem too has to be tackled.
23.
Proposed Amendments in the Land Acquisition Act-1894
1. Amendment in Section-3,Definitions:-
(i)--After clause (a)--clause (a-i) shall be inserted as hereunder:-
(a-i):The expression “benefits” in the definition of land shall mean In the case of Agricultural Land, held by a proprietor -as providing means of occupation & livelihood to four members of the family of the Landowner & in case there are more than one Proprietor then four members of each co-owner shall be deemed to be deriving the “benefits” out of the land & shall be deemed to be “Persons Benefited”. Provided that for this purpose the total land of the Landowner within five kilometers radius of the land under Acquisition shall be taken in to consideration & the figure of four “Persons Benefited” will be deemed to be reduced by a ratio arrived upon by dividing the total land of the Landowner or Co-owners as the case may be, by- the portion of this Land which is subject to Acquisition & the figure so arrived shall be converted to the higher whole number if the figure after decimal is more than five & to the lower whole number if the figure after decimal is less than five.
Explanation:- If the total land owned by a Owner/Co-owner as the case may be is say 3 hectares & out of this total land, 2 hectares is proposed for Acquisition than for the purpose of benefits, 4 X 2/3=2.66 or 3 members of the family of the owner/Co-owners will be deemed to be “Persons Benefited” in the land. If only one Hectare is being Acquired then 4 X 1/3=1.33 or 1 member of the family will be deemed to be deriving benefits out of the Land & hence the “Person Benefited”.
Explanation-2:-Agricultural Land for the purpose of this clause means the land falling in the area to which the Agrarian Reforms Act of that State Applied not withstanding the fact that at the time of the Acquisition it is being cultivated or is lying uncultivated or fallow or is within the boundaries of any Urban area or Municipality or the like but shall not include such land:
(a)- which prior to the Date of publication of Notification under Section-4(1) has ceased to be Agricultural Land under the Provision of that Agrarian Reform Act & has been declared by that Agrarian Reform Act as non agricultural Land. Or
(b) Which, on the date of Publication of the Notification under Section-4-(1) is found to be covered by Buildings, or is found to be specifically utilized for non Agricultural purposes. Provided that in case of Buildings if there is no boundary wall around the Building/Buildings, then, an area thrice the area covered on the ground by such Building /Buildings shall be deemed to be attached to the building & this area along with the area of the building shall not be deemed to be Agricultural Land.
(ii):-In Section-3 after clause (f), clause (ff) shall be inserted as :-
( f f ):- Diversion of Public purpose:- Shall mean putting the Land to any Use other than that for which it was Acquired.
(iii):- In Section-3 after clause (b), clause (bb) shall be inserted as:-
(bb):- “Persons Impacted” in the case, of, Villages to which, the Agrarian Reform Act of that State, in which such Village is situated, applied, shall include all “persons interested” as well as all families of “Landless” Agricultural Laborers & Village Artisans, or all such families who are defined as Landless Families according to the norms set out in the Agrarian Reform Act of that State (In case the Agrarian Reform Act of that State does not define “landless family” and also does not make any rule to define them, then, till such time, any family having less than one hectares of land shall be deemed to be landless family for the purpose of this Act.), the family or its head should have been resident of that Village for at least fifteen years .
2. Amendment of Section-4 of the Act:-
Reason(1):- Public notices are being inserted in Newspapers with very low circulation & thus remain unknown for weeks to the general public / “Persons pacted”.
Proposed Amendment :
(i)-In section-4-(1) of the Act, instead of- [“and in two daily newspapers circulated in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language”], substitute the following:-[“and in three daily newspapers, circulated in that locality of which at least two shall be in the regional language & these two should be amongst the top four(circulation wise) newspapers in that regional language in the locality.”]
Reason(2):- The Government departments are making plans for Acquisition & the Officials/Officers, of both the Government department in charge of Acquisition as well as the beneficiary Authority for whose favor Acquisition is made, indulge in Speculative transactions in land on a large scale in adjoining areas knowing fully well that the price of land in such areas will increase due to the Improvement/Industrial Scheme for which land is being acquired in fact this is a very big motive in going in for un necessary acquisition. In certain cases firstly Land transfers are effected at inflated rates deliberately by Bureaucrats/Politicians/land mafia nexus & thereafter the Land Acquisition Scheme for some cooked up purpose is forwarded & the Compensation claimed at inflated rates & land is also purchased at even lower rates in adjoining areas to get double benefit.
Reason(3):- As soon as the Section-4-(1) notification is issued, the selling & buying of land stops in the area & thus the rates get frozen. However in many cases the Authority publishes a section-4-(1) notifications & then goes to sleep & thereafter republishes it in newspapers after years & in that case too the highly partial Judges of the Supreme Court allow the Government to do this as in the case of Urban Improvement Trust v/s Bherulal & Ors by Judgment of Supreme Court dated 20/09/2002 of M. B. Shah & D. M. Dharmadhikari. J J .In that case,
S-4(1) made on 21-02-1990
Published in Newspapers on 31/3/1990 & 01/04/1990
Published in Gazette on-04-06-1992
Affixed in Conspicuous places on –13-11-1992
Republished in Newspapers on 17 & 19-05-1993
Declaration made on 17-05-1994
Declaration published in Gazette on-24-05-1994
Declaration published in Newspapers on 9 & 10-10-1994
Any sane man would clearly see the illegalities/malafide in the case but the Honorable Judges said that the delay of even more than a year in between publication of the Section-4 notification in the Newspapers & in the Gazette was proper because no limitation was given in the Act. Now the fact is that the bona fide selling activities get frozen in the area as soon as section 4(1) notification is first made & the natural increase in property prices will not at all be there & in fact there may be distress transactions by needy land owners at much below the market price which will then become the basis for calculating the Market rate at the time of the date of Publication of Notification under S-4 (which may even be three years from the date of first publication) because the Market rate is fixed on the basis of the date of Publication of the Notification under S-4(1) which is the last publication. Also this will be used to defeat the period of limitation of one year provided under Section-6-(1) (ii). However if for the purpose of this limitation date of first mode of Notification under Section-4(1) is taken then it is possible, that the Acquiring Authorities will simply publish the Notification in the Gazette & then sit on it for months together before its publication in Newspapers or Conspicuous places ( as they have been repeatedly doing to get advantage of this lacunae & its Officers are purchasing lands in adjacent areas for their personal profit) and in such cases, that the Landowners in the area may not come to know of the impending Land Acquisition & may indulge in buying & selling & thus liable to be penalized under Section 24 clause Seventhly. To put an end to this I propose the following amendment.
Proposed Amendment :- (ii)-In Section-4(1) of the Act after the phrase in brackets “[(the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the notification)]”. The following shall be inserted:-“Provided-(1) :- that the period between the first publication & the last date of publication or giving of Public Notice,(both the dates inclusive) shall in no case exceed thirty days.
Provided –(2):- that if the period between the first Publication & the last Publication or giving of Public Notice, exceeds thirty days then in addition to the market value of the land as provided by Section-23-(1) & Additional Amount as provided by Section-23(1-A), further additional Amount shall be payable as provided for in Section-23-(1-B) inserted by this amendment”. This additional amount shall be recovered from the Government functionary/ functionaries responsible for the delay.
Reason(4):- At the time of Acquisition the Rights of Villagers in Common Utility Lands are trampled upon although no law provides for such Rights to be extinguished & also there is wide spread resentment amongst Villagers all over the Country & to protect these rights, Annexure-1 ,a full commentary on the subject is annexed. Therefore the following Amendment to the Land Acquisition Act-1894 is proposed:-
Proposed Amendment:-
(iii):- After Section-4-(2) of the Act the following Sections will be inserted:-
Section-4-A:- In every case before issuing a notification under Section-4-(1), the appropriate government shall Make a Resettlement/Rehabilitation Scheme for the “Persons Impacted” & in it also ensure:
(i):- That in the case of Villages, the Rights of the Villagers in all their Common Utility Lands(which include all the wastelands, Forests, Fuel-wood Jungles, Haat bazaar Lands, Land for Festivals & Melas, Lakes & Ponds, Wells , Fisheries, Pasture Lands, pathways, irrigation channels, All Trees on these lands & the like ) as well as the extent of these lands situated in the Villages are not affected (although to ensure continuity of the Scheme for which land is proposed to be Acquired, these common utility lands may be exchanged with other alternative lands to an equal extent. Except in rarest of rare cases, like those related to the defense of the Country or Irrigation Schemes, which by their very nature are such that the Abadi sites of the Villages have to be relocated, in all other cases, before issue of Section-4(1) notification, A scheme shall be made for provision of these Alternative common utility lands to the Villagers by going in for such additional Acquisition of Land (to the extent of the common utility land of the villages as is likely to be affected by the original Scheme of Acquisition), in addition to the Land proposed for the original public purpose. This additional Land acquired will be provided as common utility land to the Villagers by attaching it with their abadi sites in cases where all the lands of that village/villages under private ownership has been acquired & in cases where all the land of the village has not been Acquired, such land shall be provided at some other suitable place in the same Village/Villages along with suitable access to such alternately provided land to the Villagers. Along with the relocation of the common lands of the Villages, it will be incumbent upon the appropriate Government to provide for, on these alternative Common utility lands, Ponds & Wells or other such things as are essential for enjoyment of the Common Utility Lands by the Villagers.
(ii):-In the Rarest of Rare cases as above provided, requiring Relocation of Village/s, It shall be mandatory for the appropriate Government, to provide for Common Utility Lands, equal in extent to such lands as were there in the original Village/s along with provision of alternate Abadi sites & Other Relocation Compensation & benefits, to the affected Villagers & to provide for on these alternate Common Utility lands, Ponds & Wells or other such things as are essential for enjoyment of the Common Utility Lands by the Villagers.
(iii):- That the appropriate Government may also make a Scheme to provide alternate occupations like Animal Husbandry, Cottage Industries, Vegetable & Fruit Gardens on these common lands & allot them to the Villagers in whose Villages these Common Lands exist, in such order & preference by rules that may be made.
(iv):- That in Extreme cases where the Village/s can not be Relocated to new places & the villager/s settle instead only for Compensation then in addition to the Compensation agreed or awarded under the various Sections of the Act, such Villager/s as are forced (due to lack of alternate land for relocation), to, settle for Compensation alone, shall be entitled for Compensation for loss of these Village Common Lands also & such Compensation for these Village Common Lands will be calculated in the same way as Compensation for private Lands & then distributed in proportion to the number of Families of the Village/s in such manner that the Landless Agricultural Laborers, Village Artisans & other deprived sections of the Village/s hereinbefore defined as “landless families” shall get thrice the amount allowed on account of Compensation for loss of Village Common Lands than the Landowning families & for this purpose & to define “family” as well as “landless families” the appropriate Government may make appropriate rules. Provided that if these definitions are already there in the “Agrarian Reforms Act” of the State then those shall be followed
Explanation:- If Rs 60 lakhs is allowed as Compensation for loss of Village Common Lands and there are thirty land owning families & ten “landless families” then Rs 30 Lakhs will be distributed among the 30 “landowning Families” thereby allowing Rs One lakh to each such family & Rs thirty lakh among the 10 “landless families” thereby allowing Rs three lakh to each such “landless family”.
Reason:- By experience I have seen that in most of the cases it may be possible to acquire the needed land without having to acquire it by force provided the appropriate Government has clear & above board motives & is forthcoming with all the facts of the Scheme in a transparent manner along with a proper resettlement Scheme. The Supreme Court has been in a most partial(in favor of Government bodies) manner refusing to recognize, for the purpose of Market value of the Lands as provided for by of Section-23-(1) clause first, the Circle rate declared by the Collector for purposes of Stamp duty, although the Collector decides these circle rates admittedly as the minimum market rate of the property & even the Income tax Act now provides that in all transactions of immovable property, the minimum transaction value shall be deemed to be the Circle rate as declared by the Collector. Therefore this highly biased attitude of the Supreme Court has to be changed & condemned. It is an open secret that trillions of Rupees in black money is being hidden in property transactions because the circle rate is generally less than the market rate & in any case the Government can not blow hot & cold at the same time, it can not follow one set of principles, to value property when it needs to collect revenue & yet another set of principles when it acquires the Lands. There is a lot of confusion about the potential value of Land or if the land is fit for a building site or not. Therefore I intend to rectify this situation also.
Proposed Amendment:- After Section 4-A, inserted as above, Section-4-B shall be inserted as hereunder :-
4-B-(i):-In every case, in the case of Acquisition, for which, the entire land of any village is not acquired, the appropriate Government shall ensure that notification under Section-4-(1) is issued, for a much greater area, preferably for, at least, twice the area, required for the original public purpose & for this purpose a Plan shall be made, in the desired area so that those landowners as are willing Voluntarily to submit to the Acquisition may do so either for Compensation or for alternative lands in exchange.
(ii):-Similarly in cases where the entire land of the village/s is to be acquired then the appropriate Government should try to include the land of adjacent village/s (& for this purpose make a Plan) so that the object of notifying a greater area for the purpose of getting Voluntarily surrender of land for Acquisition may be achieved.
(iii):- Therefore in all cases, covered by provisions of clause(i) above, the Appropriate Government shall issue the Section-4 (1) Notification for this greater area than that required.
(iv):-In rarest of rare cases covered by clause (ii), above the appropriate Government, shall either issue the Section-4 (1) Notification for this greater area than that required unless, after going in to all the aspects of the circumstances, it expresses its in ability to go in for such greater area, as provided for by clause(ii) & in all such cases where the appropriate Government expresses its in-ability, the reasons for doing so shall be recorded, in detail. Thereafter it shall be lawful for the Appropriate Government to issue the Section-4 (1) Notification for the area as originally required for the public purpose. (v):-To help the appropriate Government to achieve the policy of Voluntarily surrender, by Land owners, of Land, to Acquisition, It shall be lawful for the appropriate Government to offer alternative lands to those landowners, as Voluntarily submit their lands to Acquisition (but instead of monetary & other benefits as offered by the Acquisition Scheme , opt to get land in return),at any place, within the greater area as arrived at, by making a Scheme for the purpose, & in that event, it shall not be open for the allottees of these alternative lands, to challenge the Scheme of allotment of alternative land in any Court. The appropriate Government may for the purpose of making the scheme of allotment of alternative sites to such landowners, take the help of the Consolidation Authorities in that State or make a suitable Committee for the purpose. Provided that all landowners, who opt for alternative land instead of Compensation, shall also be paid a sum equal to ten percent of the Market value of the land as offered by the Notification made under Section-4-(1) of the Act & thereafter they shall not be entitled to make any further claim for any Compensation under any provision of this Act or any other Act. They shall however be entitled to receive interest for any delay at rates as applicable under this Act. The provisions Indian Registration Act or Indian Stamp Act shall not apply to these alternative lands.
(vi):- In all Notifications issued under Section-4-(1),the appropriate Government shall, specifically declare, in such notification, the market value of the Land(as per provisions of Section-23-(1) clause first of the Act) it is willing to pay provided that this market value so declared shall in no case be less than the Market value calculated on the basis of the Circle rate declared by the Collector for the purpose of the Stamp Act. In the same notification, the appropriate government shall also declare the specific amount, in rupees(per square meter/bigha /acre/hectare or any other unit, as the case may be, taken as the basis for the purpose), payable under Section 23(2) of the L.A.Act-1894 & full details of the resettlement Scheme made as well as the Scheme made for protection of Common utility lands & any other details as may be provided, relating to the Acquisition & make an offer to the Landowners to either submit Voluntarily, their Lands to the acquisition against payment of Compensation as declared or against allotment of alternative lands + twenty percent market value of the land as declared in Section-4-(1) notification or to make their objections in writing against the Acquisition within a period of 30 days from the date of publication of the Notification under Section-4-(1), whereupon all the land owners, subject to the area of the land, needed, as submit, Voluntarily, their lands to Acquisition, shall be entitled to the Compensation & other benefits as declared in the Notification under Section-4(1) without further right to challenge on this account. While in case of those land owners, who submit their objections, to the Acquisition, further proceedings of Acquisition as provided by Section 5- (A) & thereafter shall be followed.
Provided-(1) :- That in case of land situated within, the boundaries of a Development Area or a Municipal Area, or any other Town area or Urban area as declared by any other Act or a Cantonment under the Cantonment Act, the land, for the purpose of determination of market value, shall always be deemed to be Land suitable for Building purposes & the Circle rate as mentioned above shall be, deemed to be the Circle rate declared by the Collector for Residential purpose& in cases where Residential Circle rate is not declared, it shall be deemed to be thrice the Agricultural Circle rate of the area.
Provided –(2) :- That in case of land situated within one kilometer on both sides from central line of any National Highway, or land situated within 500 meters of a State Highway or Land situated within 100 meters of any other major road having a width of 6 meters or above or any land situated within 200 meters of the boundary of the Village abadi site(if recorded as such in the revenue records) of a village or land situated within 200 meters of an “area having substantial building activities” ( “area having substantial building activities” may be defined by the State Government by rules made for this purpose but shall always include any University; Mandi established under the Mandi Samiti Act of a State; Industrial Township; Engineering College; Medical College; Polytechnic; Industrial Training Institute; Any other Recognized Educational Institution(other than a primary or Nursery School) having a Building with covered area of more than 1000 square meters & having more than 300 students on its rolls on the date of publication of the Notification under Section-4(1) ; A Factory or Mill or any other Industrial Undertaking having a Building with covered area of more than 1000 square meters & employing at least fifty workers; a residential flat or colony having more than 30 occupied dwelling units made of Bricks/Concrete & other masonry material; a Market Place or Shopping Center having more than 30 functional shops made of Bricks/Concrete & other masonry material within a compact area of 100 meters radius), shall always be deemed to be land fit for building purposes & valued as such.
Provided-3:- That in those cases alone where the Land is valued as fit for building purposes and that rate is taken as the basis of market value although the land is agricultural or lying fallow or is “lying waste” (not covered by Buildings),then it shall be lawful for the appropriate Government to deduct a total of fifty percent from the market value derived [as per provisions of Section-23-(1)], on account of the vast ness as well as on account of development charges of the area, in all cases, where the Land above five hundred square meters is acquired from each landowner( the term landowner includes his family members as defined in the Agrarian Reform Act of that State, In the case of absence of such definition family means Husband +wife + minor children), The phrase “not covered by buildings” , as contained in this proviso means balance land after deducting four times the area actually covered on the ground by any building/s. Provided further that no such deduction on account of vastness or development charges shall be made in the case of any such land, in respect of which, the stamp duty on “Non Agricultural Circle Rate” was paid by the Landowner on the entire land at the time of transfer of the land, in his name, whether by sale or by lease. The market value of land arrived at after deduction as above shall be the market value to be declared in the Notification under Section-4-(1) as well as for the purpose of Section-23-(1). The appropriate Government shall mention these details in the Section-4(1) notification in compliance of provisions of Section-(4-B)-(vi).
Provided-4:- That for purpose of Section-4-B-(vi) or any of the preceding Proviso, if there is no Residential Circle rate declared by the Collector & instead only Industrial or Commercial Circle rate is declared by the Collector then instead of “Residential Circle rate”, Industrial or Commercial Circle rate, which ever is lower shall be deemed to be substituted, provided further that such Industrial or Commercial Circle rate should not be less than thrice the Agricultural Circle rate, in which case thrice the Agricultural Circle rate shall be deemed to be the Residential Circle rate.
Proposed Amendment:- After Section 4-B, inserted as above, Section-4-C shall be inserted as hereunder :-
4-C-(1):- After the publication of the Section-4(1) notification if sufficient number of Landowners willingly come forward to avail of the Offer of Compensation & Resettlement /Rehabilitation Scheme so that the land Voluntarily submitted by them to Acquisition is sufficient for the desired public purpose as well as for effecting the exchange of the affected Common Utility Land, the Collector shall proceed to prepare a map for a compact area equal to the area required for Acquisition +exchange of Common Utility Lands & for this purpose he may take assistance of the Consolidation Authorities of the State if available. In this map the Collector (after consulting with the department or Company for whom the Land is Acquired) shall mark the Land required for the public purpose & the land needed to provide alternate lands for common utility in such a manner (without adversely affecting the Scheme of the Public purpose or access to the land required for the said public purpose), so that the least possible area needs to be compulsorily acquired. If the offer of land by Landowners exceeds the requirement then offers of landowners, subject to foregoing provisions of this section, will be considered subject to first come first served policy.
(2):- After making the Map for a Compact area as provided under Subsection-(1) above, the Collector shall proceed to allot alternate lands, if needed, to the applicants as well as for the Village Common utility Lands as per the Scheme made & to take further steps for the compulsory acquisition of balance land if needed.
(3):- The Collector shall cause to be prepared a list of all “Landless families” & it shall be obligatory upon the Collector to ensure that all “Landless families” are given the Compensation as well as the benefit of the Scheme of Rehabilitation & Resettlement as provided by the Scheme or any of the Provisions of this Act & for the purpose of making the list of “Landless families”, he may depute any Officer & hold him responsible & impose suitable punishment or fine(as provided by rules made for this purpose by the appropriate Government) for any lapse on this account.
Provided:- That till such time as the rules are not made for this purpose, the Collector shall impose the punishment of impounding the salary of the Officer deputed till the lapse is rectified by that Officer.
Insertion of Section-4-(D):-
Section-4-(D):- As soon as any Possession of Agricultural Land in a Village (even if the Village is included in any Town Area, Municipality or any other Authority), is taken of any land, under the Land Acquisition Act, the Collector shall distribute a sum called “Impact Compensation”, amounting to “twenty percent” ( in cases , where the percentage of these Landless families in the Village is more than 40 % of all the families of that Village & in cases where the percentage of Landless Families amongst all the families of the Village is less than 40 % then instead of “twenty percent” , the “Impact Compensation” amounting to half of that lesser percentage shall be calculated. ) of the Market value of that Land calculated under Section-23-(1) as well as Additional amount as per Section-23-(1-A), amongst the “Land less families” of that Village in equal proportion. Whereupon these Landless families will not be entitled to any increase in the “Impact Compensation” so awarded but in relation to their own Land, they will be entitled to all other benefits as provided under this Act. Any delay in payment of “Impact Compensation”, beyond thirty days from the date of Possession shall make these “Landless Families” entitled to 15 % per annum interest Compounded monthly. Explanation-1:- It is hereby clarified that this “Impact Compensation” shall be calculated on the entire Land, of which possession is taken, including the Land of these “Landless families” and shall be paid in addition to the normal Compensation payable for their own lands.
Explanation-2:- It is hereby clarified that the “Impact Compensation” shall become payable in relation to the land of which possession is taken at the time of each such possession whether taken on one occasion or on different occasions. For example if Possession of ten hectares is taken on date-“A” then “Impact Compensation” for ten hectares shall become payable on date “A” and so on.
Insertion of Section-4-E :- As soon as a Notification under Section-4-(1) has been first published, the State Government or the Central Government as the case may be shall direct the Competent Vigilance department to hold an inquiry in to all the sale transactions or agreement to Sale transactions of all land in the area under Acquisition as well as within two kilometers radius of it to find out if any Officer / Official belonging to, the Office of the Collector or to the Beneficiary Authority of the Acquisition or to the Appropriate Government concerned with the Acquisition has indulged in any speculative transactions taking advantage of their knowledge of the proposed Acquisition. If the Vigilance Department finds any such Speculative transaction to have taken place then it shall recommend suitable action to be taken against the guilty & thereafter the Appropriate Government shall take suitable action including seizure of such lands by paying a maximum of 50 % of the value of the transaction. The transactions referred to above shall include all transactions relating to the period commencing from two years before the first publication of Section-4-(1) notification & ending on the date of this first publication.
Amendment to Section-5-A:-
(i)- In Subsection-(1) Instead of the phrase “Any person interested in any land which has been notified under Section-4, subsection-(1),” Substitute the following “ Any person interested (other than the persons who voluntarily surrender their lands, in writing, for acquisition on the basis of the Scheme made for this purpose) in any land which has been notified under Section-4, subsection-(1),”
(ii)- After Subsection-(2), Subsection-(2-A) shall be inserted
(2-A):- The Collector shall dispose of each objection, separately after providing an opportunity of hearing & shall also ensure, that, in all cases, where the objector is claiming a legal right of exemption, on the basis of some policy matter of some department of the Government, the concerned department of the Government, related to that exemption policy, is served a notice to that effect & thereupon it shall be mandatory for the Head of that Department to either attend the hearing himself or depute a suitable Officer to either contradict the claim or to allow the same. In case the claim is denied, the Officer of the concerned Department shall record in detail the reasons of doing so in writing. That thereupon the Collector shall while sending his report under Subsection-2, to the Appropriate Government, mention all such details in respect of each such objection in his report. Thereupon the Appropriate Government department authorized of taking final decision on the subject Land Acquisition matter shall consult with the Head of Department of the Department of the Government denying the Exemption in spite of its declared Policy of Exemption of that department and thereafter for very good reasons to be recorded in detail by both the Heads of Departments, the Objection may be rejected.
Provided-1 :- That no such Objection, praying for Exemption, (filed by a Housing Society or its Members, where the Housing Society has purchased the Land or has otherwise legally derived the right to hold & transfer it, at least, one year, prior to the date of the first publication of the Notification under Section-4-(1) and it has further transferred the land/ Flat/ House to its Member by sale or by lease as the case may be), shall be rejected, if the purpose of the Acquisition is for Planned Development of a Urban Area or a City or for a Housing Scheme.
Amendment to Section-6-(1) of the Act--
(i)—After the phrase—“[and different declarations-----------------------Section 5-A, subsection (2)]”, the following shall be added—“Even if only one declaration has been made containing all the land or different declarations have been made containing different parcels of land, the said declaration or declarations as the case may be shall be deemed to be different declarations for each parcel of land contained in the declaration/s and any challenge to any declaration in any Court shall be deemed to be only a challenge to that parcel of land to which the challenger has a legal right to maintain a suit or writ and for this purpose the challenger shall be bound to clearly mention the details of the said land and no Court shall entertain a suit or writ unless the details of the Land under challenge are clearly mentioned therein.
(ii)- In explanation-1 to Section-6-(1)—after the phrase “In Computing--------------shall be excluded”. The following will be added---“However for the purpose of this exclusion clause, the stay order of a Court as referred to in this explanation shall be deemed to have applied only to the land of the Plaintiff/s or petitioner/s, and details of this land should have been clearly mentioned in the suit/ petition and thus the exclusion clause shall apply only to such parcel of land without effecting in any manner, the limitation period relating to other parcels of land contained in the Notification under Section-4-(1). No Court shall pass any stay order staying any proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act without mentioning in such stay order, the details of the Land to which it shall apply and any stay order passed without such details shall be deemed to be Void & shall neither effect the Land Acquisition proceedings nor it shall have been deemed to have affected any further proceedings. Where any Court, while considering any case, is satisfied that it is also necessary to stay either any proceedings with regard to all the land covered by any Notification or any proceeding with relation to any land other than the land involved in that case, it may do so by clearly mentioning in its order that it is to apply to such other land/s also.
Amendment to Section-6 subsection-(2):- Instead of the phrase “(the last of the dates of such publication and giving of such public notice , being hereinafter referred to as the date of publication of the declaration)”—the following phrase shall be substituted- “(the date of first publication either in the Official Gazette or Newspaper being hereinafter referred to as the date of publication of the declaration)”
Insertion of section-6-(4):- for the purpose of the foregoing sub sections and all other Sections of this Act, any reference to any declaration under Section-6 being made shall be deemed to mean the date when the said declaration is signed as well as first published either in the Gazette or a Newspaper as provided in subsection-(2) of Section-6.
Amendment to Section-11:-
(i)- In Section-11, after subsection-4, the following subsection-5 shall be inserted—
(5)- In making the Award under Section-11, the Collector shall not have any power to fix the market value of any land at less than the Circle rate declared by him for the purpose of stamp duty and shall also follow the provisions relating to fixing of the Market value provided under various sections of this Act.
Amendment to Section-11-A:-
(i)- In Section-11-A, instead of the phrase “within a period of two years” substitute the following—“within a period of six months”
(ii)- In the Explanation to section-11-A, instead of the Phrase “ period of two years”, the phrase “period of six months ” shall be substituted.
(iii)- In the Explanation to section-11-A, instead of the Phrase “any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the said declaration”, the phrase “the declaration of award in pursuance of the said declaration ” ,shall be substituted.
(iv)- In the Explanation to section-11-A, after the phrase “shall be excluded]”, the following shall be inserted- “provided that the order of the Court deemed to have stayed the declaration of Award shall be deemed to have applied only to the land mentioned in the stay order & this exclusion clause shall not apply to any other land.”
Amendment to Section-16:- After the phrase “free from all encumbrances”, the following will be inserted---“Provided that the Land will vest only subject to the fulfillment of all procedural & legal requirements as per the provisions of this Act and if the vesting is not found to be legal by the Courts then the vesting of the land in the Government and retention of the Land by the Government shall be subject to the Compliance by the Government with the mandatory penal provisions of Section-57 inserted by this amendment otherwise the land will revert back to the person from whom it was acquired & he shall be entitled to regain possession as provided for by Section-57 inserted by this Amendment.
Amendment to Section-17-(1):- The following proviso will be added at the end—
Provided-1:-That the Land will vest only subject to the fulfillment of all procedural & legal requirements as per the provisions of this Act and if the vesting is not found to be legal by the Courts then the vesting of the land in the Government and retention of the Land by the Government shall be subject to the Compliance by the Government with the mandatory penal provisions of Section-57 inserted by this amendment otherwise the land will revert back to the person from whom it was acquired & he shall be entitled to regain possession as provided for by Section-57 inserted by this Amendment.

Amendment to Section-17-(4):- In subsection-(4) of Section-17, the following proviso shall be added at the end---
Provided-1:-That the provisions of this subsection may apply to cases relating to acquisition of lands for Defense or National security or Irrigation schemes or Construction of Roads or for matters relating to Natural disasters/ National Calamity or Fire Services or Life saving matters.
Provided-2:- That the provisions of this subsection may also apply to such other cases which are declared to be of urgent nature by the legislature of a State or Parliament of India or by an Ordinance.
Provided-3:- That the provisions of this subsection will never apply to cases of any Scheme of Town Planning or for planned development of any area or for any Industrial Authority.
Reason:- To prevent Speculation in Land & unnecessary Acquisition, I propose to insert Section-16-(A) & 16-(B) as under:-
Land if not Utilized-Insertion of New Section-16-(A)- If any Land (other than land for which instead of monetary Compensation, alternative land has been allotted), Acquired under the Land Acquisition Act is not utilized ( if at least 50% of the entire land acquired in pursuance to a single Section-4-(1) notification, has been utilized for the declared purpose within the limitation as hereafter prescribed then none of the land shall be deemed to be unutilized), for the declared purpose, within five years of the date of possession then the person from whom it was acquired shall have the right to demand, within two years of the expiry of the said period of five years, for its return from the Appropriate Government and if he does so then the Land shall be returned to him after he has paid back only the market value of the Land calculated as per provisions of Section-23-(1) ,which has been paid to him till the date of return of possession to him & thereafter any Reference under Section-18 or its further appeal shall become void. Provided-(i)-that the Appropriate Government may refuse to deliver back the Land to him & instead pay to him a further sum calculated at the rate of 25 % of the Market value alone as prevailing on the date of Section-4-(1) Notification and in that event the Reference if any under Section-18 or its further appeals if any shall continue till the Market value is finally determined.
Provided-(ii)- This further sum shall become payable after expiry of six months from the date of receipt by the Appropriate Government, of the Letter, demanding the return of the Land & thereafter interest on this sum shall be payable @ 15 % per annum compounded quarterly.
Diversion of Public Purpose-Section-16-(B)- Use of land (other than land for which instead of monetary Compensation, alternative land has been allotted), for a purpose other than the declared purpose of Acquisition shall only be permissible after expiry of ten years from date of Possession . It shall not be lawful for any body including the Appropriate Government to divert from the public purpose as declared in the Notification under Section-4-(1) of the Act before the expiry of ten years from the date of Possession. However if the appropriate Government itself decides to divert from the original purpose before this period of ten years expires or the person to whom land has been transferred after its Acquisition, wishes to divert from the declared purpose and applies to the Appropriate Government for permission to use any land for the new purpose, then the Appropriate Government shall firstly offer the land back to the person/s from whom the land was Acquired or to the legal heirs of the person/s, (by publishing a notice to this effect in at least two Newspapers in the Regional Language, having vast circulation in the area) from whom it was acquired in the first instance, provided the erstwhile owner is willing to pay back the amount received by him as Market value alone for the Acquisition of his land and the land shall vest in him if he pays back this amount within two months of the date of receipt of the offer to him and thereafter possession shall be handed over to him or his Heirs as the case may be. On failure to pay this amount within the prescribed period (which shall in no case be extended), it will be deemed that the erstwhile owner or his Heirs have refused to take back the Land & thereafter the Appropriate Government will be entitled to divert from the original public purpose or to permit the person to whom the land may have been transferred after the Acquisition, to do so, as the case may be after paying to the erstwhile owner or his Heirs, a further sum calculated at the rate of 50 % of the Market value alone as prevailing on the date of Section-4-(1) Notification. Provided that the market value for this purpose will be the Market value as finally determined under the provisions of this Act. Delay in payment of this sum will entitle the recipient to receive interest on this sum @15 % per annum compounded quarterly. For the purpose of this Subsection, this further sum shall become payable to the recipient after the expiry of one month from the date of deemed refusal by him to take back the land as provided hereinbefore.
Amendment to Section-23
Amendment to Section-23-(1-A):-
(i)-For “twelve percent per annum” substitute “15% per annum compounded quarterly”.
(ii)- In the Explanation to section-23-(1-A), after the phrase “shall be excluded]”, the following shall be inserted- “provided that the order of the Court deemed to have held up the proceedings shall be deemed to have applied only to the land mentioned in the stay order & this exclusion clause shall not apply to any other land.”
Reason for amendment to Section-23-(2):- Due to the benefic provisions proposed in the Act, for the benefit of the owners of Agricultural lands & Villagers by this amendment, the Compulsion for Acquisition will not be as harmful to the interests of land owners as before hence the Amendment. If similar Scheme of Rehabilitation is made for Urban Lands also then lesser solatium may be paid to their landowners also.
Amendment to Section-23-(2):- At the end of the subsection, the following shall be substituted- “In relation exclusively to Acquisition of the Agricultural Lands of Villages, Instead of the phrase [thirty percent] in this sub section, the phrase [fifteen percent] shall be deemed to be substituted.
Insertion of Section-23-(1-B) :- If as provided by 2nd proviso to Section-4-(1), the period between the first Publication & the last Publication or giving of Public Notice , exceeds thirty days then in addition to the market value of the land as provided by Section-23-(1) & additional amount as provided by Section-23-(1-A), a further Additional Amount calculated @ 1 % on such market value shall be paid for the delay per week or part thereof.
Explanation:- If the delay is for one to seven days then 1% of the market value shall be payable and if the delay is of eight days then 2 % of the market value shall be payable and so on.
Amendment to Section-24 of the Act ;-
Reasons- clause fifthly is redundant as it is settled law that a land owner is entitled to the most profitable use of the land as also because under the Agrarian Reform Acts of post independence era, land owners have been given the right to use their lands for any purpose and Town Planning acts although place some restrictions on these rights but the same can not be unreasonable & prohibitive & can also not be for unlimited period . Clause eighthly is ambiguous and arbitrary and allows the Authorities to go in to deep slumber & to use the provision under the pretext of some unidentifiable law & use its provisions arbitrarily at their whims and fancies without taking the pain of implementation of the given law within the parameters of the law of limitation. It is always open to the authorities to take action under any law against law breakers but the Authorities can not be allowed to use this power when ever it suits them. I therefore propose to repeal this clause & insert Section-24-A to restrain the authorities from arbitrary action.
Repeal of clause eighthly of Section-24 of the Act :-
Clause -eighthly of Section-24 of the Act is hereby repealed.
Insertion of Section-24-A:- After the date of first publication of the Notification under Section-4(1), No action will be initiated by any Authority against any building, as existing on this date on any land in the subject area of Acquisition, on the charges of the building having been constructed without sanction or otherwise contrary to any law. Where, prior to the issue of section-4-(1) notification, any such action had been initiated under any law against any such building then unless the case has been finally decided against the Building by the Highest Court of appeal, all proceedings pending in any Court against the building shall be deemed to have become void on the date of the first publication of Section –4-(1) notification and compensation for the building shall be paid under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act treating it , for the purpose of valuation as a residential building even if such a building is being used for a more valuable Commercial purpose.
Amendment to Section-34:-
(i)- In Section-34 instead of the phrase “rate of [nine percent] per annum” substitute the phrase “ rate of [twelve percent] per annum compounded quarterly”.
(ii)- In the proviso to Section-34, instead of the phrase—“ rate of fifteen percent”, substitute the following phrase-- “Eighteen percent per annum compounded quarterly”.
Reasons to Restrict the Rights of Beneficiaries of Acquisition-
In a few cases the beneficiary of the Acquisition has been given relief by the Hon’ble Supreme Court where it found that the Authorities had unilaterally or arbitrarily exempted the Lands of the land owners under Section-48 of the L.A Act. However it is difficult to understand how the Beneficiary of Acquisition can challenge a Judgment of the High Court where the High Court, in order to protect the Rights of landowners, (whether Legal or Fundamental by what ever name called), finding the proceedings to be illegal, quashes the proceedings & upholds the Right of the Land owner. All that it, the Beneficiary of Acquisition can do is to sue the land acquisition Collector for damages on account of Illegality & falsification of records of Enquiry under Section-5-A (provided it itself was not a party to such irregularity).Even in cases where the Appropriate Government ( having absolute Power under Section-48 to withdraw from Acquisition) finds that the lands of the person interested need to be exempted under Section-48 of the Act owing to some policy of the Government & it does Exempt them so even in that case the Courts have no business to entertain the beneficiary of Acquisition merely because he had paid some money or fee for Acquisition to the Land acquisition Officer as the Preexisting common law Rights of the persons interested, unless legally acquired, will always prevail over those of the Beneficiary of Acquisition & even in that event the beneficiary of Acquisition can simply file a suit for damages against the Appropriate Government. The following example will clarify the situation:- “A” on behalf of “B” negotiates with the Shopkeeper “C” for a washing Machine needed by “B” & during the negotiations a scuffle takes place & “C” is hurt by “A” & the matter reaches the Court who pronounces “A” as a culprit. “A” does not object to sentence passed by the Court but “B” files an appeal & claims Locus standii saying that it was he on whose behalf “A” had gone to negotiate with “C” & asks for quashing of the sentence. The Acquiring Body can only enforce its agreement if any made with some land owner but will not have the umbrella of the Land acquisition Act to enforce it.
In the Land Acquisition Act, the appropriate Government Acquires the interests of the owners in the Land & then hands over the lands to the Beneficiary of Acquisition as per their agreement. If the interests of the owners are not acquired properly, the land will not vest in the Government & will not pass on to the beneficiary.
In Section-3, clause-(b)- the expression “person interested” includes all persons claiming an interest in Compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of land under this Act; and a person shall be deemed to be interested in land if he is interested in an easement affecting the land;
In Section-5-A (3)- For the purpose of this section a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to claim interest in Compensation if the land were acquired under this Act.
In section-13-A:- correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in award or errors arising therein may be done either by the Collector on his own motion or on the application of any person interested or a Local authority. In this section limited locus has been given to the local authority.
In Section-18, in its application to Uttar Pradesh:- Section- (3) has been inserted giving Right to the land Reforms Commissioner in case he considers the compensation to be excessive, to require the collector to refer the matter to the Court for determination of Compensation.
Therefore under this Section also a local Authority or a Company on whose behalf land is being acquired will be deemed to be a “person interested” within the meaning of Section-3-(b) of the land acquisition Act if it has an interest in the lands that are the subject of acquisition, and it has therefore a right to demand a reference under Section-18 of the Act.
In Section-50-(2):- A local Authority on whose behalf & at whose cost the lands are being acquired may appear before a Collector or Court to adduce evidence for the purpose of determination of Compensation.
It is therefore clear that the local Authority for whom, the land is being acquired has no locus under the Act to Appeal against a Judgment of any Court upholding the Legal Rights of a person interested. It has very limited locus standii only under Section-13-A & 50-(2) of the Act. Therefore even in cases where the Court has struck down the Section-48 Notification, it could have done so only if satisfied that there was a criminal conspiracy between the person interested & the Officer responsible of the appropriate Government & in that event unless the Court while quashing the Section-48 Notification also directs for institution of Criminal proceedings against the Conspirators under the prevention of Corruption Act or any such similar enactment, it can not & should never ever have quashed a Section-48 Notification for exemption of Land of any person interested merely on the ground that the acquiring body had paid / deposited the cost of Acquisition. The only option for the Acquiring body in all other cases is to sue the appropriate Government for damages.
Insertion of New Section-48-(2-A)- After Section-48-(2), Section-48-(2-A) shall be inserted:-
Section-48-(2-A)- If the Government, under Section-48, withdraws from any Acquisition, the person or Authority for whom the Land was being Acquired shall not have any power to challenge the withdrawal and the right of such beneficiary of Acquisition shall be limited to prove corruption and collusion & claim damages from the appropriate Government provided that no landowner whose land has been exempted from Acquisition under Section-48 shall be made a party in any such legal proceedings challenging the exercise of power of withdrawal.
Power of the Courts & effect of their Judgments/Orders-
Insertion of New Section-56
Section-56-(1) Any Court under its Jurisdictional powers may entertain any suit or writ challenging any proceeding under this Act but No Court shall pass any Judgment or Order, either final or interim for either quashing or staying any proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act without mentioning in it, the details of the Land to which the Judgment or Order shall apply. Any Stay order passed without such details shall be deemed to be Void & shall neither affect the Land Acquisition proceedings nor it shall be deemed to have ever affected any further proceedings. Where any Court, while considering any case, is satisfied that it is also necessary to either Quash or stay any proceedings with regard to all the land covered by any Notification or with relation to any land other than the land involved in that case, it may do so by clearly mentioning in its order that it is to apply to such other land/s also.
(2)—Where any Court passes any order staying the dispossession of the Petitioners, it will not be deemed to have stayed other proceedings also and the Authorities under the Act will be free to make the Declaration or Award in spite of the Stay order and shall be not entitled to any benefit provided under the Act like any exclusion clause of any limitation period.
Explanation-1:- For the purpose of this subsection if any stay against dispossession is given by a Court, before a Declaration under Section-6 has been made, it shall not mean that the Authorities under the Act have been restrained from issuing a Declaration and Award unless it has been specifically forbidden by the stay order and in that event also the restriction shall be deemed to have applied only to the land mentioned in the Order & it shall be mandatory for the Authorities to continue further proceedings, in relation to the other lands, within the limitation provided. Similarly if any stay order against dispossession is passed by any Court after a Declaration has been made, it shall not mean that the Authorities under the Act have been restrained from issuing a Award unless it has been specifically forbidden by the stay order and in that event also the restriction shall be deemed to have applied only to the land mentioned in the Order & it shall be mandatory for the Authorities to continue further proceedings, in relation to the other lands, within the limitation provided.
(3)—All Courts in India whether the Reference Court or the High Court or the Supreme Court while considering any case or appeal relating to Land Acquisition Act shall without fail decide the matter within one year of its filing & the Cases under the Land Acquisition Act shall get preference over all other matters in all Courts in India. No case or appeal under the Land Acquisition Act shall be adjourned to a date beyond seven working days from the last date by any Court in India. All courts in India shall nominate sufficient number of Judges to achieve the objects of this subsection.
(4)---- where any Court hearing a case relating to quantum of Compensation by Reference under section-18 does not decide the reference within one year then not withstanding the outcome of the reference, the person interested who has filed the reference shall be paid after the expiry of this one year period, from the Consolidated fund of the State, a sum calculated @ of 2 % per month on the market value declared in the Award till the reference is decided by the Court and this sum of money shall not be recovered from the beneficiary of acquisition to whom no adjournment shall be allowed on any account and if he fails to adduce any evidence then the Court shall decide the case on the basis of available record before it. Provided that if the person making the Reference is himself responsible for the delay by seeking adjournments either himself or by his lawyer then for each such adjournment, thirty days shall be added to the limitation of one year herein before prescribed. The provisions of this subsection shall Mutatis mutandis also apply to any appeal (relating to matters related with Compensation under this Act), filed with the High Court or the Supreme Court.
(5)—Other than for matters as provided by section-13-A & 50-(2), No Court shall entertain any suit, writ or appeal (against any of the provisions of the Land acquisition Act or against any Order or Judgment passed by any Court while considering any challenge to any land Acquisition Proceedings), which has been filed by the person or Authority for whom the land is being Acquired by the Appropriate Government other than for a case of damages against the Government, referred to in Section 48-(2-A) inserted hereinbefore. Provided that if the Appropriate Government files an appeal, within the limitation period against the order or Judgment of any Court then the beneficiary of Acquisition may also join in the Appeal but only after such appeal by the Appropriate Government has been filed and that too within the limitation period. No Court shall have any power to condone the delay in filing of any appeal, filed against any Judgment of the lower Court in matters relating to Land Acquisition.
(6)—Where any Court entertains a suit or writ in relation to a case of damages as provided for by Section-48- (2-A) then it shall not deliver any Judgment or order which affects adversely, the right of any landowner whose land has been exempted under Section-48.
Penalties against Illegalities committed by the Acquiring Authority or the State Government :-
Judges of the Supreme Court have reached a consensus that as per the Land Acquisition Act, if the Government takes possession of the Land then it can not loose possession even if the same has been taken/obtained by fraud. They say that there is no provision in Land Acquisition Act for reverting of land back to the owners even if the award is Quashed-What these judges mean is that a Criminal should be allowed to enjoy the fruits of his crime. What they say is that the Land will vest in the Government “free from all encumbrances”. That may be true but it can only mean that the land will so vest only if the possession has been obtained after following all the due provisions of law & it will naturally revert back to the erstwhile owners in case of any illegality & all that the Government can get is the refund of any Compensation paid-minus some reasonable penalty of fraud Free from all encumbrances will only mean that the rights of the earlier owners will cease (again subject to the following of all the due provisions of law) but the purpose of Acquisition will come as a fresh encumbrance on the land & the Government will have to use the land only for the purpose for which it acquired. Any other interpretation will mean that the Government can acquire the land of Citizens by saying that it wants to build a School in the Residential colony, the Land owners may not object due to the usefulness of the purpose. Now once the government Acquires it can it then build a foul smelling Garbage Dump instead? As per these August Judges—it can.
Insertion of New Section-57:- (1)-In land Acquisition Proceedings When ever any Court quashes any land Acquisition proceedings by holding that the opportunity of hearing although claimed to have been given under the Inquiry under Section--5-A was actually not given or only a formality was done and no effective hearing was given then it shall be mandatory for the appropriate Government to suitably punish the guilty officers.
(2)- Whenever any Court holds that no proper vesting of land had taken place owing to any procedural lapses or illegalities committed by the acquiring authority or the Government then even if it is claimed by the acquiring Authority that the Possession of the land was taken and as such it has vested free from all encumbrances, the possession will be deemed to be void and it shall be mandatory for the Appropriate Government to –
(i)- Either return the possession to the erstwhile owner subject to his willingness to pay back to the Government fifty percent of the amount received by him as Compensation for the land till the date of return of possession to him and thereafter the land shall vest in him free from all encumbrances and all pending as well as further proceedings and appeals with regard to the quantum of compensation shall cease.
OR
(ii)-If the appropriate Government for some reason wishes to retain the possession then it shall pay a further sum calculated @ 50 % of the Market value alone (as declared in the award relating to his land) ,of the land to the person interested from whom that land was acquired. Thereafter the land will vest in the appropriate Government free from all encumbrances. This further sum shall become payable after the expiry of 120 days from the date of declaration by the Court of the vesting to be illegal. Delay in payment of this will entitle the person interested to 15 % per annum interest compounded quarterly.
Some Provisions for resettlement & Rehabilitation
In addition to the any Rehabilitation & Resettlement Policy that the Government may make, the following provisions should be incorporated.
1. In all cases of Planned Development of Cities, Acquiring body should allot Commercial Plots/Shops to the affected Landowners on the main roads of the Scheme & in case of Multistory Commercial Centers, on preferably the Ground & First floor of the Buildings.
2. In case the acquisition is being done for the benefit of any Industrial Authority desiring to divide the land in plots & then selling it to Industrial Undertakings for Industrial & ancillary Residential Use then too Shops & Commercial Plots to be reserved for affected Land owners and class ‘C’ & ‘D’ jobs in the Industrial undertakings to be reserved for affected Land owners.
3. Where the Acquisition is for Industrial Authority, it shall hold a demand Survey before going in for Acquisition, after advertising in prominent Newspapers and by other modes. It shall call for at least 5% of the estimated selling price of Plots as earnest money to be adjusted if the department gets encouraging response to proceed further. The Authority should be entitled to go in for Acquisition of only ten times the area of land for which it has received earnest money during the demand survey. It should be clearly mentioned in demand survey that the lease of land shall be forfeited if the Allottee fails to make substantial construction & start Industrial production (Substantial Construction to be defined by the State Governments but shall not be less than a Construction requiring coverage on the ground of atleast 20 % of the Plot area Allotted ) within 3 years of possession so that Speculation in Land is not the motive of allottees. Provided that in relation to Industrial activities traditionally requiring more open space, and to this effect, the Industrial Department of the Central or State Government issues a certificate to this effect, the above restriction shall not apply but even then the Production in the Industrial unit should have commenced in the Industrial unit to avoid the Forfeiture of lease. Provided further that the Appropriate Government may also place additional restrictions like the minimum number of workers to be essentially employed in the Industrial undertaking depending on the area of the plot.
4. In Town Planning Schemes also essential condition of forfeiture of lease & reentry on failure to make substantial Construction, within three years, as provided for Industrial Authority shall be stipulated however Substantial Construction for Residential & Commercial Plots shall not be less than 50 % of the permissible F.A.R. for the plot.
5. In any Land Acquisition proceeding, for Acquisition of Agricultural Land, in addition to the Compensation as provided for in other provisions of the Act, provision will have to be made in the resettlement Scheme to provide alternative means of livelihood to the minimum number of “Persons Benefited” of each land owner family (other than those who are given alternative lands) as prescribed in definition (a-i) or in the alternative a further sum, equivalent to fifty months wages to each, calculated on the basis of minimum wages prescribed for Agricultural workers by the State or Central Government as the case may be. Similar provisions for at least two members of each “Landless Family”.
Enclosure :- Commentary on Village Common Lands.

(Robby Sharma)
















Commentary on Village Common Lands.
R o b b y S h a r m a 865, Block-B,Panki Kanpur-208020
Uttar Pradesh. INDIA
Freelance Research Scholar Ph:09235844258; 09415438326
Town & Country Planning Problems Email.sharmarobby@hotmail.com
To :
The Honorable Member of Parliament 10th November-2006
Respected M.P. Ji
I had sent nearly similar letters to the letter reproduced below to more than 100 honorable parliamentarians on 19th September-2001 & 12th January 2001 but regret to say that only one M P bothered to acknowledge the letter which concerns the welfare of crores of poor peasants and requires immediate attention, I am sending it again and request your help.
Thanking you
Yours sincerely


[Robby sharma]
865, Block-B, Panki Kanpur-208020
Email:-sharmarobby@hotmail.com
SUB:- Rapid conversion of villages falling within Municipalities & Urban development
areas into filthy slums destruction of village culture & deprivation of the right to
life of crores of their inhabitants due to faulty urban planning.
I would like to draw your attention to the following important points which ought to have been kept in mind while going in for any kind of Urban planning in India however no planner has ever paid any heed to these problems with the result that crores of inhabitants of many thousands of villages have been uprooted from their traditional occupations, left to beg on the streets of cities or to wash utensils in urban households or to take up cleaning jobs, to toil as gardeners in bungalows or to act as coolies or to pull a rickshaw in short to take up the lowliest of lowly jobs in the cities, These are the same villagers who were once the proud farmers & village artisans till their villages were unfortunately included in some Municipality or other Urban area without any fault of their own.
[1] THAT the villagers have also been guaranteed the right to live with dignity by article 21 of the constitution.
[2] THAT the way of living of the villagers is quite different from that of the urban populace & continues to be so even after their villages are included into urban areas, the income of the villagers is quite low as compared to that of the urban populace.
[3] THAT the villager subsists on agriculture, animal husbandry , fishing, jungle produce, agricultural labor, horticulture & various traditional arts crafts & Occupations.
[4] THAT a very large proportion of village populace owns none or very little personal agricultural land & a very large part of their economic activities is carried out over VILLAGE COMMON UTILITY LANDS such as talabs, pasture or grazing land, usar(unfurtile) banjar( Barren) , beehad (uneven) land, Playgrounds, lands for celebrating of festivals, fuel wood growing jungles, land for haat & bazaar(Open air Village market) water channels, pathways, drains, nalas, abadi sites etc.
There is always provision for reservation of sites for future growth of abadi in which land for houses is allotted free to weaker sections of village populace land is allotted for making earthen utensils to kumhars(Potters), singhara & lotus is cultivated in certain ponds ,fisheries is also done by certain castes.
Every Village household owns one or two cows or buffaloes the milk of which serves as the major source of food & nourishment for the family & excess is bartered for other household needs, in short these milch cattle kept for personal needs play a very important part in the economic well being of the villagers, the small children of the house take them to the grazing grounds[pasturelands] as a result the cost of feeding these animals is very little.These animals kept for personal needs should never be confused with chatta animals.
[5] That by U.P.ZAMINDARI ABOLITION & LAND REFORMS ACT 1950, a separate chapter was included [chapter 7].for the management of these lands for the benefit of the inhabitants of the villages where these lands were situated as on 7th of JULY 1949. THE villages were equated to MINI REPUBLICS by this ACT & these REFORMS were protected by the first amendment of the Constitution in the 9th Schedule.
Similarly ACTS for AGRARIAN REFORMS were enacted by all the States of INDIA, provisions were made in them for protection of village common utility lands, PUNJAB even made a Village Common Lands Act of 1961 but even there these lands which came to be included in Towns & Cities were grabbed for urban purposes only. In short the common utility lands should have been treated as Abadi (Settlement) lands of villages for all practical purposes but this was not done.
Just as the common utilities like parks, roads, footpaths, public toilets, Bus stands, Markets, Railways and other Common utilities of urban inhabitants can not be denied to them in case of some rural development schemes in the same way the rural populace’s common utility lands have to be protected for their exclusive use.
Just as the urban common utilities cannot be sold off or otherwise utilized by the government although it owns them so also the common utilities of the rural populace can not be sold off or otherwise utilized by the governments although they may claim ownership.
It will not be out of context to mention here that when these villages are included in urban areas no scheme is ever made to offer them wholly urban occupations nor is it at all possible to do so.
In a poor country like INDIA, rural occupations have to co exist along with urban occupations that is why you come across thousands of stray cows on the town roads, they can not be done away with, what needs to be done is to plan properly and absorb the villages in towns in such a way that the villagers right to earn his bread from his traditional occupation is protected and at the same time steps are taken to protect urban facilities.
[6] That these gaonsabha lands (common lands) were to be managed for the living Gaon Samaj (consisting of all the inhabitants of the village) as per chapter- VII -of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act & Sections 28-a,28-bof U. P. Panchayat Raj Act 1947,rules115-a to 115-u,of U.P.Z.A.& L.R Act 1950. Similar provisions must have been made by other states also.
The statement of objects & reasons of U.P.Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act-1950 as published in U. P. Gazette Extraordinary Dt.10th June 1949.very specifically reads about the common utility lands as hereunder:-
“All lands of common utility such as abadi sites, pathways, wastelands, Forests, Fisheries, public wells, tanks and water channels will be vested in the Village community or the Gaon Samaj consisting of all the residents of the village as well as the pahipasht cultivators. The Gaon panchayat acting on behalf of the village community has been entrusted with wide powers of land management. This measure which makes a Village a small Republic and a cooperative community is intended to facilitate economic and social development to encourage the growth of social responsibility and community spirit.” In other words the Rights of the Villagers as original Settlers on the Lands since times immemorial were recognized & the Villages were given permanence. No longer could the Villagers be allowed to become a Slum of some City when they were engulfed by the Urban Agglomerates as used to happen in the past that is why the U.P.Z.A. Act-1950 exempted only such Villages from the operation of the Act as were on 7th of July 1949 situated in the limits of some Municipality or Cantonment or Town area. To all other Villages this Act was to remain operative even if in future that is after 7th of July 1949, they were unlucky to come within limits of some Urban Agglomerate. None of the Urban Act / Municipal Act could have nor has repealed this Agrarian Reform Act. Only the private lands of such villages can be acquired by the Town Planning Authorities under the Land Acquisition Act & the Villagers are free to undertake alternative occupations on these common lands. As long as the Scheme of Land Acquisition is such that the Village settlements are not displaced, their common lands can not be taken away from them. In cases of emergency nature like irrigation Dams & related to Defense needs of the Country which by nature are such that existing settlements have to be shifted, in such cases the Villagers have to be provided common lands at the site where they are shifted.
[7] . THAT after these villages came to be included into Municipalities the Gaon-sabhas (Body Corporate for management of common lands for Village related matters like Agriculture including Horticulture, Poultry, animal Husbandry, Pissiculture & development & welfare of Village Artisans & Cottage Industries etc)of these villages became defunct but the living Gaon-samaj ( Consisting of all the Inhabitants of these Villages) continued to live & were entitled to the use of their common utility lands. No Rights of the villagers can ever be extinguished in their common utility lands nor were they ever extinguished by any land Acquisition notification for the private agricultural lands of the villagers for which they were paid compensation.
The Management of these lands were entrusted to the Nagar-Mahapalikas (Municipal Corporations) by various vesting notifications of the Revenue departments but the overall control & superintendence remained with the District Collectors. No Municipal or Urban Planning law has ever diluted the Zamindari Abolition benefits given to these villagers nor have these authorities ever been given the mandate of law to ignore the development of Villages nor have they been given any mandate of law to usurp these lands. Even after vesting of these lands in the Development authorities for Management only they have to be utilized for the benefit( as per provisions of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Acr-1950) of the Villagers of those Villages where they were situated. As such schemes for the benefit of these villagers should have been made on these keeping in view the special needs of these villagers for their economic upliftment.
This was never done nor were any rules made by the state Government to provide for the obligations placed on local authorities vide section 126 of U.P. Nagar-Mahapalika act 1959.with the result that the local & urban authorities took a biased view of the vesting notifications & started grabbing these common utility lands for their own vested interests other Politicians, Bureaucrats, land mafias and other rich & powerful people have grabbed these lands on a large scale.
The actual value of the grabbed lands can run into several lakh of Crores of rupees in Uttar Pradesh alone. The Senior bureaucrats of the revenue Department, the Awas department &the Nagar Vikas department are actively involved that is why in spite of 50 years of the passing of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act the various revenue officers have not allotted such Gaon sabha waste lands (other than un-allottable lands such as Pasture, Forests, Talabs etc as were prohibited by Section-132 of the U.P.Z.A Act-1950) as could be improved for agricultural purposes by their labor, to the weaker sections of these villages for whom they were meant as per the rules made & left them free to be grabbed by vested interests.
It is quite surprising that most of these allot able lands were not allotted even in Villages which came to be included in towns for the first time in the nineties it was a well thought of plan by the Bureaucrats to leave them so as they knew fully well that the value of these lands would increase greatly with the expansion of Cities at which time they could grab them through their agents by filing declaration cases under section 229-b of the U.P.Z.A.Act which does not put any limitation on these cases with the result that thousands of cases are being filed for claiming ownership Rights on the basis of forged documents, to these lands which have remained in revenue records as common purpose lands for decades.
Now suddenly new owners are coming up with forged pattas (leases/licence) allegedly given by now long dead Zamindars (erstwhile intermediaries) in back dates, the sons & daughters of these Zamindars are giving evidence that the signatures belong to their father, the lekhpals (Patwaris) are forging the entries in revenue records, the government lawyers the tehsildar, the S D O ,the S D M ,the Board of Revenue people are all assisting the grabbers for a price with the result that these lands are fast being converted from common utility lands into private lands & are then being sold even talabs(Ponds) have vanished in such a manner because during Zamindari times there was no bar on the Zamindar to grant pattas(leases) on Talabs(Ponds) or Pasturelands such pattas were banned after Zamindari Abolition.
Kanpur Development Authority claims to have been vested with Gaon Sabha lands of 228 villages vide Revenue Department of U. P. Gazette notification no.68/3-2(6)-1979 revenue 1 dated lucknow september-5-1986 surprisingly most of these villages have their own gram Panchayats a proper inquiry will bring to light the conspiracy to grab the common utility lands of these villages by corrupt bureaucrats.
The test case of Kanpur Development Authority will amply demonstrate this unholy nexus this Authority of a dead & decaying city has been vested with gaon sabha lands of around 400 villages running into approx 20000 hectares worth
around ten thousand crores (100 billion Rupees) @ minimum rate of Rs 500/=per sq meter at residential rates. The city is close to Lucknow as such the guilty bureaucrats & politicians headquartered in Lucknow can easily control the land grabbing through their agents. similarly in other states also politicians Bureaucrats & the rich & powerful mafia are grabbing these common utility lands.
[8] That the Town planning departments from the very beginning erred in thinking that all such villagers of the villages falling under Local authority or Urban authority had been converted into Necktie supporting town folk moving around in cars & had successfully taken to town vocations The planning Authorities planned accordingly with the result that the Villagers turned into Coolies, Laborers, Utensil washers, Gardeners or took to Crime.
They could easily have been rehabilitated on their common utility lands(which are only about 10 to 20 % of the Agricultural Lands) by making proper schemes (of Cottage Industries, Pissiculture, Poultry, Animal Husbandry, Horticulture etc)on them the only problem could have been that these common utility lands were spread far & wide as such the continuity of the town schemes could have been effected.
As a very easy solution to this problem the common utility lands could have been collected together and attached to the village abadi sites in proportion to their populace (Inhabitants & Cattle) by exchanging them with private acquired lands so that the continuity of other schemes could be maintained. Thus about 80 to 90 % of the Land of these Villages would have been available for Town Planning Schemes leaving 10 to 20 % to the Villagers for alternative occupations the produce of which like milk, fruits, vegetables, Poultry, Fish & handicrafts which are in any case essential for the needs of the Urban Populace.
The talabs(Ponds) could be dug on the alternate site & arrangement to fill them by tube wells could have been made the & the Land landscaped in such a way to provide for their filling by rainwater, the fuel wood growing jungles could also be planted on the new sites, alternate drainage & nalas could be arranged. The Villagers could have limited grazing Land for their Cattle & place at safe distance but not too far away from settlement to tether the Cattle, the waste products could be carried away daily(legislation provided for this purpose).
There would have been no problem in shifting the pastureland,
The Playground, the bazaar land, the land reserved for growth of Abadi,(presently they are expected to buy land for their needs at Thousands of Rs a square meters although their Common lands have been grabbed for free & these common lands were actually set aside for community needs by the villagers themselves or the original body of settlers from time to time from amongst the Land on which they settled), the other kinds of lands to the new sites around the village Abadi (settlement), here the villagers should have been encouraged to setup non polluting kutir- udyogs (Cottage Industries), earthen pot making , horticulture ,animal husbandry sustainable on the available Pastureland, the cattlesheds could be made on the lands adjacent to the pastures.
In short the villagers of effected villages could have been provided alternate lands for their traditional trades & occupations& thus even after loss of private agricultural lands they would have been able to live with dignity in somewhat restricted manner with the help of these Common utility lands.
Instead there is talk of shifting the entire milch cattle to outside the town limits which is nothing but an absurd proposal thought of by the elitist sections of society who although born in the poorest of the poor county like India have America & Europe in mind & they want to have the following pleasures of life.
[A] -They want that the towns should be planned keeping in view only the interests of the rich although more than 80%of the populace in cities also comprises of the poor yet no planning is made for them. Majority of land should be reserved for the poor but they are made to rot on the waysides. The land of the farmer is at the slightest pretext acquired for the rich ,now when there is need for housing the poor in the middle of the town near to their place of work does any Planner, Politician, Bureaucrat have the guts to acquire the bungalows of the rich & shift them outside the cities just like the humble farmer who has been booted around for ages.There is no bar to acquisition of bungalows in the Land Acquisition act in fact improvement of Village Sites has been accorded first priority in the definition of public purpose in the Land Acquisition act of 1894.
[B] they want that a poor woman should come everyday at least twice to wash their utensils for fifty rupees a month & then should vanish she should not pollute or give a bad look to the town by living in some slum by the roadside nor bathe under a public tap[the only place she has].
Similarly the Gardner should vanish after trimming their lawn so also the Rickshawala, the Coolie the Washer man the Kumhar, the Barber, the Vegetable Vendor the Sweeper, the carpenter who sells a chair for rupees thirty to a poor man & plies his trade besides the main road of the town from where he is shooed away by the Municipal Authorities who never made any plan for him ,he is an encroacher on the road because that is where his market is. He cannot buy a shop for ten lakh. Shoo him from there he will return, he has to.The only other alternative for him is to beg or die.
[C] they want that the milk-wala should come to their house with his cow & milk it in front of their eyes then he too should vanish there should be no filth on the road, the milk wala with his Cow or two should go 40 kilometer outside the town tie it up in the cattle colony there, come to his village in the city and repeat the process
in the evening(so that Mr Urbanite can have pure milk) & then vanish again for the night or he can sleep in the Cattle Colony with his Cow so can his Wife & so can his Child.
[9] That due to the horrific state of affairs Article 243 (ZD & ZE.) was inserted in THE CONSTITUTION maybe to strike a balance between urban needs & rural needs, to provide for matters of common interest between municipalities and the Panchayats in making of plans for Metropolitan areas by the Metropolitan planning committee & for making Plans for District by District Planning Committees which have to take in to account the plans of the Municipalities as also plans of the Panchayats.
All the Urban Development authorities of the States having more than ten lakhs population under their jurisdiction qualify as Metropolitan area as defined by article 243-P(c) of the constitution & the State Governments have only to issue the notification for this purpose.
(i)- Now there is no longer any scope for a purely Urban Authority
to the detriment of the Rural populations affected by Urban Conglomerates. As such all Urban Development Authorities have to be abolished.
(ii)- That Article-243 in its entirety & specially Articles 243-ZD & 243-ZE have to be followed in such areas.
(iii)- That now the Spatial Planning has to be done keeping in view the common interests of Municipalities & Village Panchayats (Town dwellers & villagers).
(iv)- Master Plans of Panchayats & Municipalities have to be prepared. There is no scope of any Master Plan of Urban Development Authorities.
(v)- That the Planning process has been given back to peoples representatives i.e. Municipal Councilors & Panchayat members & pradhans from whom it was usurped by the even then Illegal Purely Urban Acts. In case of District Planning Committees ,Four Fifths of members have to be from this category & in case of Metropolitan Areas (Development Areas having more than ten Lakh Population), minimum Two thirds have to be from this category.
(vi)- That the Urban Development Authorities (being temporary entities by their very Acts) have to be abolished.
(vii)- That can the Urban Development Authority, shift all the Cattle to the Villages, in order just to save the City from the so called filth, without the Villagers to whose villages they are shifted , having a say in this regard.
(viii)- That can the Urban Development Authority, shift all the Pigs to the Villages, to pollute them, in order just to save the City from the filth, without the Villagers to whose villages they are shifted, having a say in this regard.
(ix)- That can the Urban Development Authority, shift all the Slaughter Houses to the Villages, to pollute them, in order just to save the City from the Health hazard, without the Villagers to whose villages they are shifted, having a say in this regard.
(x)- That can the Urban Development Authority, throw all the Garbage in or near the Villages, to pollute them, to save the City from the so called filth, without the Villagers to whose villages they are shifted, having a say in this regard.
(xi)- That can the Urban Development Authority, shift all other Obnoxious trades to the Villages, to pollute them, in order just to save the City from the so called filth, without the Villagers to whose villages they are shifted, having a say in this regard.
(xii)- That can the Urban Development Authority deprive the Villagers from their common utility land, so necessary for their traditional trades & occupation, which become the only source of livelihood after the acquisition of agricultural lands & at the same time not offer them some alternative trade or occupation, which may not require these lands.
(xiii)- That can the urban Development Authority deprive such Villagers, who never had any private agricultural lands ever and as such are totally dependent upon these common utility lands for their livelihood, such as Kumhar, Shephard , fishermen, Barber, Cobbler, small shopkeepers who sell their ware on village Haat Bazar Lands, persons collecting honey in the village forests, there are many such trades & occupations of the villagers.
(xiv)- That the answer has to be naturally NO.
xv)- That the Lal Dora applicable in Delhi & other Cities regarding villages comprised in them should include all the common utility lands of these villages if the spirit of the constitutional amendment is to be honored.
[10] That in view of the above I request you to keep in mind the poverty of the country, the interests of the poor [who are the majority in cities] & plan accordingly & to throw out all Acts & laws of the country which cater only to the elite.
[11] That I request you not to sanction any legislation which ignores the interests of the villages that are by passage of time included in the local authority or a Municipality or a Nagar Nigam or a Urban Development Authority.
[12] That I call upon you to make future legislations regarding Urban planning of cities in such a way that the common utility lands of the villages falling into the trap of cities are collected together around the abadi (Settlement) sites of these villages in the manner as suggested above & utilized for the benefit of these village people.
To stop the cattle from straying onto the main roads suitable fencing can be done. in this way a green area can be developed around all the villages.
There are hundreds of mills ,many colleges, Govtt Offices, Universities, IIT, Research Establishments, Medical colleges , I. T.I s, Polytechnics, Directorates having Campuses of 50 acres or more some have even up to 500 acres & Defence Establishments & Townships of thousands of acres are there in Kanpur as well as in many other Towns why can we not have the two hundred Villages with their own 50 or 60 acres of common purpose lands around them in a Campus enclosed by a fence or moat or Boundary wall. The arterial roads, the sewage lines , the water Supply lines, the electric lines, the rail lines can pass through above or below or around these lands of the villages as they do through above or below or around other Urban establishments if money can be spent to give facilities to rich urbanites why can it be not spent to give some to these poor villagers?
[13] I call upon you to arrange for a survey of the villages included in the Cities & Urban Authorities of the states & see for yourself how they have turned into slums in the absence of their common utility lands & I further call upon you to plan for provision of land to them for common utility even if it means acquiring lands & buildings adjacent to them & presently being used for other purposes by the rich.
[14] I further call upon you to exert your influence on the Town Planning Authorities so that the major portion of land in cities is reserved for the poor who form the majority in them & ensure that they are provided commercial & living accommodation according to their genuine needs at the minimum possible cost which they can actually afford most importantly that they are provided accommodation near to their place of occupation so that they are not forced to live in unauthorized slums.
[15] I call upon all the Town Planners, Architects & Schools of Planning & Architecture to plan on the lines suggested above so that the dignity & self respect of the humble villager can be saved as also his Right to life protected in the event of his Village Coming within the limits of a Urban Agglomerate & his village is absorbed as a Campus Village in it.
thanking you
yours faithfully


[ROBBY SHARMA,865, Block-B, Panki Kanpur-208020]
E.MAIL:- sharmarobby@hotmail.com
Copy:- 1. The Prime Minister of India
2. The President of India.
3.THE CHIEF MINISTERS OF ALL THE STATES OF INDIA
4.THE REVENUE SECRETARY U.P.& OTHER REVENUE AUTHORITIES
5.SECRETARY Urban Planning Government of India
6.SECRETARY NAGAR VIKAS U.P.
7.SECRETARY RURAL DEVELOPMENT INDIA
8.THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT MINISTER OF INDIA.
9.THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT MINISTER OF INDIA.
10. Schools of Planning & Architecture.
11. Practicing Architects