Bureaucratic Face-off Blemish Jharkhand Development
Mutual distrust between two top bureaucrats of Jharkhand cadre has dealt a major blow to the credentials of Raghubar Das dispensation in the State. The much-acclaimed amendment policy for land acquisitions was formulated under the supervision of one bureaucrat in Jharkhand and subsequently passed by the State Assembly has been spiked by another bureaucrat who presumably used his official capacity at the Centre to settle scores.
If well-placed sources at the Centre are to be believed, the recent failure of the Jharkhand Government to get the Land Acquisition Amendment Bill endorsed by the Centre has been prompted by a face-off between State Chief Secretary Rajbala Verma and her predecessor and Union Home Secretary, Rajiv Gauba. An amendment policy for land acquisitions was drafted by the State Government under the direct supervision of Chief Secretary Rajbala Verma and ratified by the Jharkhand Assembly in August 2017 amid stiff objections by the opposition inside and outside the house.
The amendments were to waive off the Social Impact Assessment (SIA) for acquisition by the government for 10 specific purposes and was aimed to use agriculture land for non-agriculture purposes. The Government had proposed to repeal the provisions for Social Impact Assessment enshrined in the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (also called Land Acquisition Act, 2013). It has kept its options open to use agricultural land for schools, colleges, universities, hospitals, panchayat buildings, anganbari centres, railway projects, irrigation projects, electrification, water supply projects, roads, pipelines, housing projects for weaker sections, etc.
In the light of objections raised by the Union Agriculture Ministry over the amendment bill to acquire agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes in Jharkhand, the Union Ministry of Home Affairs refused to endorse the bill for the President's assent. The MHA has asked the Jharkhand Government for reconsideration.
Reacting to the amendment bill, the opposition had accused the Government of depriving tribals in the area of their land and demanded to protect interests of locals by restoring provisions laid down in the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution that protects interests of the tribals in Jharkhand.
After being ratified by the State Assembly, the bill was sent to Governor of the State, Draupadi Murmu for her approval and she forwarded it for assent of the President of India in turn. Acting upon the proposal, the Union Agriculture Ministry, however, raised stiff objections. The Ministry has contended that use of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes would widen the gap between agricultural and non-agricultural land and it was not in consonance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Act of 2007.
The Union Agriculture Ministry has sent back the proposal for amendments in the Land Acquisition Bill to the Union Home Ministry for reconsideration with its objections. In turn, the Ministry of Home Affairs returned the proposal to the Jharkhand Government in the light of the Agriculture Ministry's objections.
However, well-placed sources in the MHA confided that the matter assumed even greater significance in the light of the fact that Union Home Secretary Rajiv Gauba belonged to the Jharkhand Cadre and happened to be a former Chief Secretary of the State. Rajbala Verma has often been at loggerheads with her predecessor, Gauba. During his stint as the Chief Secretary of Jharkhand, Gauba was sceptical about the credentials of Verma and he reportedly served about a dozen notices to Verma in connection with CBI queries in the multi-crore fodder scam case against the latter. Her name allegedly figured in the dossiers of the CBI for lapses on her part to check fraudulent withdrawals from the treasury in the district that she served as Deputy Commissioner during the days of united Bihar (prior to formation of a separate Jharkhand State). Gauba as Chief Secretary of Jharkhand is said to have had reservations for elevation of Verma and had questioned her integrity time and again. However, he subsequently preferred to go to the Centre and Verma was elevated to the post of Chief Secretary in the State.
Meanwhile, carrying out their tirade against the amendment bill, former Chief Minister and leader of opposition in the house, Hemant Soren, along with paramount tribal leader and his father, Sibu Soren broached the matter with Governor Draupadi Murmu and President Ram Nath Kovind. The father-son duo asked the Governor and President to rescind the bill as it was not in favour of the poor tribals of the State. Hemant Soren confirmed that the JMM had called on President Ram Nath Kovind in November this year in this regard. He said "We had already mentioned in our memorandum and handed over to the President that sections of Chapter 3 in which the state government wished to bring amendment would enhance acquisition of multi crop plants across the state."
The Jharkhand Government has, incidentally, suffered the jolt for the second time in its ploy to acquire agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes. Earlier, the Raghubar Das Government in the State wanted to amend the Chhota Nagpur Tenancy (CNT) Act and Santhal Pargana Tenancy (SPT) Act with the avowed objective to acquire tribal land in the State in the garb of carrying out developmental schemes.
Provisions under Sections 21, 49(1) & (2), 71(A) of CNT Act and those of section13 of SPT Act had been proposed to be amended. With the proposed amendments, the state government was supposed to wield power to transfer agricultural land in possession of tribals, in particular, for non-agricultural purposes that included setting up of industries, schools, hospitals etc.
Amid stiff opposition from different sections of the society, the Government had to withdraw the proposed amendments in the two Acts. The Governor returned the bill that was eventually withdrawn in the subsequent monsoon session of the State Assembly.
To top it all, whether it is personal acrimony between top bureaucrats or consequent political mileage to be gained, the development of the State is to eventually suffer the most. The State Government can, as such, neither afford to achieve the pace of development at par with many other states for want of substantial land nor can it ignore officialdom while initiating steps to acquire land in compliance with the set constitutional norms.
