Differences between Land acquisition act of 1894 and 2013 act

Differences between Land acquisition act of 1894 and 2013 act

Question - Major differences between Land acquisition act of 1894 and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

1. The title
1894 - The name of old law sounds like the primary purpose was the acquisition of land.
2013 - The title has been amended to reflect the principle objective of the new Bill is fair compensation, thorough resettlement and rehabilitation of those affected, adequate safeguards for their well-being and complete transparency in the process of land acquisition.

2. Forced acquisitions
1894 once the acquiring authority has formed the intention to acquire a particular plot of land, it can carry out the acquisition regardless of how the person whose land is sought to be acquired is affected.
2013 In cases where PPP projects are involved or acquisition is taking place for private companies, the Bill requires the consent of no less than 70% and 80% respectively (in both cases) of those whose land is sought to be acquired. This ensures that no forcible acquisition can take place.

3. No safeguards
There is no real appeal mechanism to stop the process of the acquisition. A hearing (under section 5A) is prescribed but this is not a discussion or negotiation. The views expressed are not required to be taken on board by the officer conducting the hearing.
2013 – provides Multiple checks and balances. It involves the participation of local Panchayati Raj institutions prior to the start of any acquisition proceeding. Monitoring committees at the national and state levels to ensure that R&R obligations are met have also been established.

4. Silent on resettlement and rehabilitation of those displaced:
There are absolutely no provisions in the 1894 law relating to the resettlement and rehabilitation of those displaced by the acquisition.
2013 – This law links land acquisition and the accompanying obligations for resettlement and rehabilitation

5. Urgency clause:
This is the most criticized section of the Law. The clause never truly defines what constitutes an urgent need and leaves it to the discretion of the acquiring authority. As a result almost all acquisitions under the Act invoke the urgency clause. This results in the complete dispossession of the land without even the token satisfaction of the processes listed under the Act.

6. Low rates of compensation:
1894 - The rates paid for the land acquired are the prevailing circle rates in the area which are outdated and hence not even remotely indicative of the actual rates prevailing in the area.
2013 Bill proposes the payment of compensations that are up to four times the market value in rural areas and twice the market value in urban areas.

Also 2013 bill speaks about Retrospective operation, multiple checks and balances, special safeguards for tribal communities and other disadvantaged groups, compensation for livelihood losers, caps on acquisition of multi-crop and agricultural land, return of unutilized land, exemption from income tax and stamp duty, time-bound social impact assessment,Share in developed land, damage to crops to be included in price, affected family to include tenants,monthly subsistence allowance etc.