Opposition members led by Congress’s Jairam Ramesh, K V Thomas and Trinamool’s Kalyan Banerjee on Monday (23 November) demanded that Prime Minister Narendra Modi make a statement on the land bill in Parliament, be called to depose in the JPC, and only then the Joint Parliamentary Committee, entrusted with the matter, would debate the bill.
They argued that the PM had already said on “Mann ki Baat” radio show (on August 30) that the land ordinance would not be re-promulgated, “and hence there was no point in debating the land bill as they were identical in nature”. Thomas argued that the “PM had said on twitter that the government was withdrawing the bill” so there was no point in debating the issue in the JPC.
To these suggestions, JPC chairman S S Ahluwalia said that statements, if any, had been made outside Parliament, and that they had been constituted by Parliament.
BJP and Shiv Sena members protested, saying the committee should stick to its mandate and submit its report on the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (second amendment) Bill, 2015.
Biju Janata Dal’s B Mahtab, too, strongly resisted the Congress and the Trinamool attempts and said that the JPC must come out with a report, “as it had been entrusted with, else it would reflect very poorly on it”.
The committee chairman, Ahluwalia, meanwhile, proposed that the committee seek another extension, till the end of the winter session. Congress members claimed that the chairman had sought an extension because there was no unanimity on the way forward. BJP members, however, claimed that the Chairman had proposed an extension because they “they had not received clarifications to questions they had sought from the states”.
The JPC members earlier had managed to narrow down their differences after the ruling BJP beat a retreat to retain the consent and social impact assessment clauses, as included in the 2013 Congress law.
On Monday, the JPC was to deliberate on the contentious issues, including the clause pertaining to unutilised land and the removal of difficulty clause.
According to the 2013 Act, any acquired land that is not utilised (for a project) for a period of five years, must be given back to the original owner. The government wanted it to be changed to as a period specified for setting up of any project or for five years, whichever is later.
Another bone of contention is the proposed amendment that gives the government the authority to make changes to the Act through executive orders for “removal of difficulty”. The existing Act said this power was limited to a period of two years. This period expires on December 31, 2015. The government wanted it to increase it by five years.
After the NDA government realised that it was being made to backtrack on far too many clauses, with the land bill now looking a copy of the Congress’s 2013 Act, it had advised states to have their own states laws – an idea that was enthusiastically endorsed by many BJP states in the Niti Aayog meeting convened by the Prime Minister. It’s another issue that precious little has been done on the ground on this, in the BJP states so far.
The land bill is pending before the Rajya Sabha. With Monday’s developments, it’s almost certain that it will not be passed this Winter Session.
