Description of the Module

Items Description of the Module

Subject Name Sociology

Paper Name Agrarian Relations and Social Structure in India

Module Name/Title The emergent discourse on displacement and

resettlement: protests and governmental responses

Objectives This module introduces you to the concept of eminent

domain which forms the basic premise of land
acquisition laws in colonial as well as democratic India.
It sensitizes you to the historical evolution of the
relationship between land and development, and the
rise of transnational capitalism and its impact on the
acquisition of land and the attendant problems of
displacement and rehabilitation.

Key words Displacement, Resettlement, Law, Protests,

Compensation

Module Structure

The Emergent Discourse on Displacement and Introduction, Eminent Domain, land and development,
Resettlement: Protests and Governmental Pre-Independence Land Acquisition, Post-
Responses Independence Land Acquisition, Conflicts, Conclusion

Role Name Affiliation

Principal Investigator Prof Sujata Patel Dept. of Sociology,
University of Hyderabad

Paper Coordinator Manish Thakur Indian Institute of Management,

Calcutta
Content Writer Salamah Ansari Indian Institute of Management,
Calcutta
Content Reviewer Manish Thakur Indian Institute of Management,
Calcutta

Language Editor Manish Thakur Indian Institute of Management,

Calcutta
INTRODUCTION

Land plays a pivotal role in the socio-economic fabric of India. Land is a reflection and measure
of power. Land determines one’s position in the social order. Land is the primary means of
production as India is an agricultural country. An Individual’s ownership of land is the
determinant for access to employment and to the monetary yield (Breman, 1996: 179). Land is
an important source of livelihood as a majority of population is dependent upon land directly or
indirectly for their economic activities. Land is the focal point for livelihood for not only landed
farmers but also for others like subsistence farmers, landless labourers who work on employer’s
farms, artisans, cattle rearers etc. The larger the land holding, the more people would be
employed to work upon those farms. Land accomplishes dual purposes of insurance function and
income function. When other forms of income generation fail, land comes to the rescue as it can
be sold and capital can be generated. Land also acts as a reserve pool of capital for contingencies
like drought, marriage, death, crop failure, illness etc. Thus, it performs the insurance function.
Along with this land performs the income function. Peasants can either farm on it directly or can
lease it out and earn rent.

People do not see land as a source of income alone. For them, land is the source of prestige and
social esteem. Land ownership, besides being status symbol, is also a resource for emotional
connect and identity. Land is also the umbilical cord for cultural existence. In a way, land is not
only a source of livelihood but also a way of life. A piece of land large or small; is shared amongst
siblings and their collective existence is tied to land and to each other. Mostly it is land and landed
property that one inherits from forefathers. This is one more aspect that makes land so dear to
people. They do not want to part with their ancestral property. As land plays such a central role
in people’s lives and livelihood, dispossession from land is bound to be a contentious issue.

Dispossession from land is more than mere economic deprivation. It is disrupting life, lifestyle,
relationships, and socio-cultural identity. For generations people have not known any other way
of existing. A considerable proportion of land belonging to farmers and tribals is not their own
earning but their inherited property. For a majority of farmers and tribals, land is one of the most
important assets and sometimes the only asset that they have (Sathe, 2011: 152). It is undisputed

1
that there exists an emotional bonding between the farmer and the land. But more importantly,
land is a source of employment and livelihood to the farmer, the land does not give him a high
quality of life, but it helps him to eke out a living and be somewhat “food assured” (Sathe, 2011:
153). A farmer does not become jobless as long as he has some access to land. In difficult times,
farmers can fall back upon land which constitutes their security.

Alienation from land means being thrown into new kinds of unknown uncertainties and risks for
land is the cumulative representation of social, cultural, economic identity. In this module, we
will try to understand the concept of eminent domain which forms the basic premise of land
acquisition laws in colonial as well as democratic India. We would deliberate upon the change in
people’s perception about this exercise of eminent domain by the state. We will also try to look
at the relationship between land and development, and how this has historically evolved, the rise
of transnational capitalism and its impact on the acquisition of land and the attendant problems
of displacement and rehabilitation.

EMINENT DOMAIN

Land is one of the most important factors of production. Historically, land has been acquired for
developmental and industrial purposes. Colonial rulers have been credited with the development
of some of the very basic and modern institutions in our country, the most prominent of them
being the railways. The British laid down extensive railway networks spanning the length and
breadth of India. Rail tracks were not laid in vacuum or on unoccupied land solely. A huge
displacement of people took place. Be it the establishment of industries or huge mansions and
monuments, displacement and dispossession of people from their land has always been there.
The justification of this displacement and dispossession was premised on the doctrine of eminent
domain, it presumes a priority to the requirements of the State which, by definition, is for the
general good of the public, over the interests of landowners and users (Ramanathan, 2011: 10).

2
 https://www. google. co.
in/search?q=land+acquisition+images&espv=2&biw=1366&bih=667&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=Ixp
RVO2cE8PLmwWDroKAAQ&ved=0CBsQsAQ#imgdii=_

In Indian context, eminent domain quintessentially implies the power to take private property
for public use by a state, municipality, or private person or corporation authorized to exercise
functions of public character, following the payment of just compensation to the owner of that
property (http://legal-dictionary. thefreedictionary. com/eminent+domain).

There are two major aspects of eminent domain: the sovereign authority of State and its
discretion to decide what constitutes public purpose. State is sovereign and so has the legitimate
right to acquire private property for public purposes. The canon of eminent domain embedded
in land acquisition laws assumes sovereign power for “public purpose” (Sampat, 2014: 32) and
invests power in the state to acquire private land for public purpose on payment of compensation
(Ramanathan, 2011: 10). The state has sovereign authority to acquire land or any immovable
property but along with that it is unequivocally imperative that the acquired land be used for
public purpose; for the good of community at large. It can be argued that when some public value
is created with such acquired land, it will eventually benefit those people also who had to forego
their properties.

Sampat argues that the doctrine of eminent domain has extra-constitutional and pre-democratic
moorings in India (Sampat, 2013: 41). Eminent domain is often linked to the idea of modernity,
development, industrialization, progress, technological superiority and urbanization. In the name
of ultimate upliftment of those deprived from their lands, land acquisition has been vigorously
pursued by the state. Initiated by the colonial rulers to facilitate better governance of colonies,

3
it is extensively used by the democratic state as well in the name of “greater common good”
(Sampat, 2008:26).

Giving up land for development of industries was seen as a mark of patriotism and nationalism.
There are abundant examples of philanthropic giving of land willingly as people wanted to
participate in nation building. Nascent Indian state needed land for establishment of industries
and institutes for undoing centuries of subjugation and retarded development. People were so
tired of impoverishment and backwardness that nation building was the desire and dream of not
only the social and political elites but also the marginal farmers and the labourers. With the
euphoria around nationalism and nation building in the post-independence period, the idea of
eminent domain started superseding individual rights.

It is estimated the state has dispossessed at least 50 million people of their land and livelihoods
under the colonial Land Acquisition Act 1894 (Sampat, 2008:26). This dispossession was by virtue
of exercising the powers of eminent domain. Instead of allowing a broad and egalitarian
interpretation, eminent domain is often used as a tool to justify coercive practices of state on
behalf of the private capitalist. This capital can be domestic or transnational.

Eminent domain is also the basic premise for redistributive justice on which land reforms was
constructed. It involved state intervention to redistribute land amongst the landless and put a
ceiling on land holding capacities. However, land reforms soon lost political expedience as they
encountered resistance from the landed elite with direct electoral implications for political
parties (Sampat, 2013: 41). In such a situation, using eminent domain as a base for appropriation
of land for non-agricultural uses led to disruption. Under the pretext of economic growth,
eminent domain is being used to further the interest of capitalists. It is argued that the
constitutional status of the doctrine of eminent domain and the unqualified removal of the right
to property as a fundamental right without attention to existing social, political and economic
inequalities resulted in making dalits, adivasis, poor peasants and the urban poor most vulnerable
to the exercise of eminent domain under the LAA 1894 (Sampat, 2013: 42). The state aligned its
plans of development with that of the capitalists and started acquiring and transferring land to

4
corporations, leading to dispossession and displacement. The state turns out to be adversarial to
the interests of the dispossessed people (Ramanathan, 2011: 10).

LAND AND DEVELOPMENT

As land has emerged as one of the bigger constraints on development in recent years (Sathe,
2011: 151), there have been a lot of protests against the indiscriminate usurpation of land for
developmental purposes. The case of Nandigram is an apt example. Salim Group was allowed by
the West Bengal government to establish a chemical hub in Nandigram. The Salim group was
allowed under the Special Economic Zone (SEZ) policy. However, the local villagers opposed the
construction and a brutal clash between the police and the citizens followed. It is reported that
14 people died in the incidence. Developing countries in general and India in particular have
witnessed a change in pattern of development. There are three important factors of production:
land, labour and capital. Labour has always been abundant in India; land and capital being the
constraining factors. In recent times, capital has ceased to be a constraining factor due to a
number of reasons. The marginal propensity to save has increased in developing countries like
India and China. As these countries are heavily populated, an incremental increase in savings
leads to considerable escalation in available capital. This is complimented by the inflow of huge
foreign capital into developing countries in the form of Foreign Direct Investments. More capital
is available as international institutions like IMF and World Bank finance projects in developing
countries. These favorable conditions for developmental leave only land as the determining and
constraining factor for development. The main issue before the state and the investors is to
acquire land in a peaceful manner so that the process of capital accumulation and growth
continues (Sathe, 2011: 155).

Industrialization necessitates acquisition of land to set up new industries. Industrialization

increases growth rate which means a faster rate of conversion of agricultural land into industrial
land. The demand for non-agricultural land is rising consistently along with the growing economy
and our transition from an agrarian economy to an industrial economy. Quintessentially, land
acquisition is the process by which a Government acquires land for various economic and
infrastructure projects. In certain situations, it can also mean acquisition by a private person

5
authorized to do so by the government. Land acquisition imperils livelihoods of people concerned
and, hence, has to be accompanied by fair compensation. The Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 has substituted
Land Acquisition Act of 1894 in India. Inadequate compensation and adverse economic impact
are major problems related to land acquisition in India. Land Acquisition as a process is
undergoing significant transitions: political, economic, social, environmental, and spatial
(Goswami, 2012: 2). Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been used in combination of several other
laws which are sector or project specific. National Highways Act, Indian Railways Act, and state
specific versions of Land Acquisition Act are few of these.

India being predominantly an agrarian society, the contention around land acquisition is not
merely limited to the quantum of compensation. Land is the pivot of agrarian structure.
Acquisition of agricultural land disrupts this agrarian structure. This disruption is the main reason
behind the protests against land acquisition. As land is an emotive issue, closely linked to identity
and livelihood, forcible acquisition of land is bound to generate more protests (Kumar, 2011:21).

PRE-INDEPENDENCE LAND ACQUISITION

The colonial administration had massive development projects of roads, railways, canals and
other infrastructure. These developments were primarily to expand and facilitate colonial rule.
However, the advantages spilled over to Indian society. Various acts like the Bengal Regulation I
of 1824 were enacted for easy acquisition of land from the pre-independence presidencies.
Arbitrators were appointed for determining compensation for such acquisition which was
essentially for public works. Since colonial rule, under all circumstances, the sovereign
government had legitimate rights with certain limitations to acquire land. There is no legal
provision for contesting acquisition; objection can only be raised against the amount of
compensation paid or the process of the payment thereof. The thumb rule for compensation has
been the market value. Compensation has to be in accordance with the market value at the time
of acquisition. Effective rehabilitation and resettlement of the displaced, the fair, prompt,
adequate and effective payment of compensation and other such issues have come to the fore

6
in recent times. International laws and public interest litigations have played a prominent role in
bringing about this change in discourse.

Moving from province subjective regulations, the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 was a step
towards establishing uniformity in acquisition of land across India. It was also a ploy of the
colonial powers to legitimize their authority. The British Empire was consolidating its rule across
India and this single law helped them immensely in administration.

The peculiarity of this Act of 1894 lies in the fact that it legitimized government acquisition of
land and other immovable assets for developmental purposes. It is only after the Non-
Cooperation movement in 1923 that an amendment was made in this act. After the 1923
amendment, objections could be raised against land acquisition. Indian leaders became a part of
local administration after 1923, and even after considerable deliberation the Act did not provide
that persons having an interest in the specific land had a right to object to such acquisition
(Goswami, 2012: 3).

The monetary compensation paid to the land owners was in accordance with the market price of
land prevalent at that time. There were discrepancies in the process of deciding the amount of
compensation but nevertheless a due process of law for acquisition was followed. In the colonial
rule, no provision for the rehabilitation and resettlement of the displaced and dispossessed was
present. It should be noted here that land acquisition did not displace only the landed farmers
but several other categories of people who were directly or indirectly dependent on land for
livelihood and subsistence. This included the landless farmers, farm laborers, families of farmers,
share croppers, and artisans etc. (Guha, 2013: 1). This unrestrained power of acquisition of land
by sovereign government continued in post-independence India as well.

POST-INDEPENDENCE LAND ACQUISITION

Ideally the oppressive laws and policies of the colonial rulers should have been annulled after
Independence. However, this seldom happened in public administration or in legislatures. Post-
independence, the public administration bureaucracy continues to have essential characteristics
that it had pre-independence with minor changes in its structure. Same is true for legislatures.

7
Part XX of the Constitution of India maintains that all pre-independence laws will be applicable
post-independence also. Any pre- constitutional law, when in conflict with the Constitutional
provision will be void up to the extent of such conflict. The Doctrine of Eclipse unambiguously
states that-

“All pre-constitutional laws, if in part or completely in conflict with the

Constitution, shall have all conflicting provisions deemed ineffective until an
amendment to the Constitution ends the conflict. In such situation the provision
of that law will again come into force, if it is compatible with the constitution as
amended (Jain, 2010). ”

The continuation of pre-Independence laws was an easy way to settle contentious issues like
property, trade, and land acquisition etc. This was essentially for facilitating establishment of
heavy industries as part of the planned development for modernizing Indian State. Several key
and heavy industries like steel and automobiles were promoted. Developing indigenous
industries required land and as the Act of 1894 was coherent with the needs of that time, the Act
was not repealed but amended in a staggered manner. This allowed enough discretion to the
newly formed government to acquire land in the name of developing the nascent industries. The
theoretical premise of eminent domainwas employed to legitimize the actions of government
and other authorized private players. It is in this context that the Right to Property which was
included in Fundamental Rights was amended. Right to property was in direct conflict with the
massive plans of Indian government for industrialization. Deletion of Right to Property from the
list of Fundamental Rights paved the way for the legislations that deprived citizens of their
property. Such acts of government got legitimized under the constitution. The judiciary
vehemently protected the Sate’s interest in several cases filed against the government for
acquisition of land. Landmark judgments like Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala were
pronounced which further legitimized the state’s actions as far as expropriation of land was
concerned. The definition of public use was interpreted widely by the courts in several other
landmark judgments pertaining to land acquisition.

8
CONFLICTS and Legislative Responses

The rate of growth of the economy has increased substantially and this has led to increase in the
demand for land for non-agricultural purposes (Sathe, 2014: 74). Post-independence India has
witnessed the greatest expansion of non-agricultural sector. However, in the initial decades after
Independence protests on the issue of displacement were not so common. One, the legal
framework was not democratic but was colonial and it paved way for land acquisition without
much legal recourse left for the dispossessed. Second, the civil society and the non- governmental
organizations were not so vigilant, partly because of a long history of colonial oppression and
partly because it was the ethos of nationalism which coaxed the citizens to bequeath their lands
for nation building. Third, the demand for land was considerably low as a large section of
population was agrarian and industrialization was in its nascent stage. Industrialization brings
with itself a set of other developmental requirements like proper roads, railways, electricity, cold
storages, ports etc. In advanced stages of industrialization, land is also required to provide for
these complementary activities/sectors. This increases the pressure on land as is happening in
India in recent times. It would be wrong to assume that the process of land acquisition was
smooth and sans any hiccups after Independence. Both the framework for acquisition and the
attitude towards acquisition in popular imagination was different. May be, stringent draconian
legal instruments were enough to discourage people from protesting. In fact, a sacrifice was
demanded from the displaced for the larger good. And, the agitations that took place were
extremely local in nature and were ruthlessly crushed (Sathe, 2011: 152).

These days, an increasing amount of land is being required for non-agricultural purposes. These
non-agricultural purposes can be industrial or developmental in nature like creating housing for
urban dwellers, highways, commercial complexes or shopping malls etc. Allegedly, the state has
displaced and pauperized millions of people in the countryside (Sampat, 2008: 74). The State is
increasingly playing the role of promoter of corporate-led economic growth which is underlined
by the acquisition of land and subsequent transfer of this land to “developers”. Acquisitions,
displacement, compensation and rehabilitation thus gets pushed to a private arena with

9
compensation potentially negotiated by the market and without the state’s responsibility for
rehabilitation (Sampat, 2008:25).

The reason behind the protests is the change in the people perception of state. As there is
increased alignment of state interest with corporate interest, which has the state acquiring and
transferring land to corporations, has had dispossessed and displaced persons and communities
seeing the state as adversarial to their interest (Ramanathan, 2011: 10). This is one of the major
reasons for farmer’s agitation and violent conflicts with the state as regards forcible land
acquisition. Development of infrastructure and industry was coupled with expropriation of
property from people who did not necessarily gain from such expropriation. The public value thus
created did not reach the affected proportionately as they were displaced and dispossessed and
their rehabilitation issues were not addressed. After the economic liberalization in 1990s, the
problems of displacement aggravated as the demand for getting land which is often fertile for
agriculture by private players has tremendously increased and the Governments are found to
fight with the farmers in acquiring land for industrialists (Guha, 2013: 2).

In the wake of economic reforms, such conflicts have become more widespread and violent.
Initially, the patriotic-nationalistic zeal would make land acquisition and related practices of state
somehow palatable. It was considered a matter of pride and patriotism to relinquish land for
developmental purposes as people felt that they are contributing towards nation building. The
reason for surge in popular agitations on the issue can be attributed to the adoption of
liberalization policy; growing land acquisition for the private sector and the like (Fernandes,
2011). In the last one decade, the drive for rapid industrialization and urbanization has led to
increased pace of land acquisitions and subsequently the rise of a large number of protests by
farmers on the issue of land acquisition (Kumar, 2011:20).

In the pre-liberalization period, the government provided protection for agricultural land. Sampat
(2008), however, sees a “nexus of legality, state power and neo-liberal capital” in the post-
liberalization periodleading to dispossession of farmers from their land. More and more land is
being taken for industrial and commercial purposes as Government has moved away from land
reform and effective protection of farmer’s interests. A form of “corporate imperialism”

10
(Srivastava 2010) is rampant which pays no heed to the issues of farmers resettlement and
rehabilitation.

In the name of development and modernity, the idea of industrialization is being pushed in
developing countries. Yet, industrialization in a country like ours leads to dispossession and
exploitation of a large number of people who are dependent upon land for their livelihood. The
rationale of “common good” fails to justify the large scale displacement. It should be noted here
that dispossession from land has multiple implications. One, the people are dispossessed from
livelihood which they derive directly or indirectly from land. Two, the social and cultural life is
disrupted. Three, the economic life is marred beyond repair. The people who are dependent on
land have been into this business for generations, they do not know much beyond this. When
they are alienated from their land they turn towards urban informal sectors for employment.
Indeed, a large number of industrial labour or the urban footloose labour has rural origins.

After years of popular protests and violent agitation, we have a new policy on the issue: The Right
to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013. Despite its limitations, this is much farmer-friendly than the older legislations on the issue.

https://www. google. co. in/search?q=land+acquisition+images&espv=2&biw=1366&bih=667&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=IxpRVO2cE8PLmwWDroKAAQ&ved=0CBsQsAQ#imgdii=_

The legal framework pertaining to land acquisition can be analyzed from three angles: the soul
of the land acquisition law or in that case any law is the principle on which it is premised; the
process of implementation of law and the compensation mechanisms involved. As far the land
acquisition law in India is concerned, there is no change in the philosophical premise. It was and

11
is eminent domain. The colonial rule used the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the independent
India deployed the same for decades with minor changes. Recently it has been replaced by The
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013. The philosophical premise of both these acts is eminent domain. The
process of land acquisition has been far from being fair. It was neither consultative nor
transparent. The present Act 2013 attempts to resolve some issues of transparency and
accountability but still the situation de facto and de jure is far from ideal. As land is directly or
indirectly linked to the issue of livelihood the issue of compensation is multifaceted and is often
the most widely debated issue (Mahalingam and Vyas, 2011: 94).

The issue of land acquisition is inextricably linked to the compensation package offered to those
who part with their land (Sathe, 2014: 74). Immediately after independence, large tracts of land
were acquired by government for setting up industries and institutions. Huge steel plants, mining
industries, power plants etc. were established. Massive industrial development happened. It can
be argued that the quantum of industrialization that happened immediately after independence
was phenomenal and such large scale industrialization has not happened after liberalization. The
difference between these two phases is essentially the feeling of nationalism that was present
amongst citizens then and not later. Citizens then had immense faith in the government. They
believed that the acquisition was for nation building projects.

The broad framework of the process of land acquisition in the Bill- 2013 is similar to the earlier
colonial law it has annulled. The only major change that has been introduced is the survey of the
land prior to notification for acquisition. The notification is served to the land owners through
the district magistrate. There is no room for any negotiation before the notice is served. It is
argued that the State’s role is that of a “venture capitalist” (Palit and Bhattacharjee 2008). The
provisions for objection to acquisition are unambiguously stated in the Bill- 2013. The most
important being the purpose of land acquisition, if the land being acquired is not to be used for
any public purpose then objection can be raised. The suitability of the land for the aforesaid
purpose can also be questioned. The land acquisition should be proportionate to the requirement
for the project, more than the necessary size of land should not be acquired. In case a proposed

12
land acquisition causes displacement of people or affects their livelihood; and an alternate piece
of land is available that fits the bill, and then objection can be raised.

The National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy (NRRP) 2007 is an umbrella law which aims
at protecting the lives and livelihoods of the displaced. However, it does not address the issue of
displacement or dispossession per se. It broadly aims at regulating the large scale displacement
of people for industrial and commercial purposes. It lays down certain guidelines for land
acquisition such as; projects should be set up on nonagricultural lands, wasteland, and arid lands
as far as possible. The amount of land acquired should commensurate the project requirement.
If there is some alternate piece of land available then acquisition of agricultural land or land with
habitation should be avoided. If it is imperative to acquire agricultural land in specific area, then
single cropped land should be preferred over multi cropped land. Grazing ground should be
preferred over single cropped land and so on. Acquisition of irrigated land should be kept to
minimal. In short, this policy urges that land acquisition be a well thought out process. Pieces of
lands should not be usurped randomly. The consequences of land acquisition on lives and
livelihoods of people as well it environmental impact and broader socio- cultural impacts should
be borne in mind.

Be it the railways or the huge army cantonments during colonial rule, or the power plants or
mines after independence; multifarious projects displaced peasants and farmers from their land.
We should realize that a number of massive industries and institutions have been established on
fertile lands after independence. Majority of the protests against land acquisition are for the basic
reason that enough compensation is not paid to the dispossessed people who depend on land
for their livelihood.

If the fair compensation mechanisms are in place, a considerable proportion of protests can be
handled and mitigated. More often than not, subjective and suboptimal methods are galore so
far as compensation is concerned (Mahalingam and Vyas, 2011: 101). Alternate livelihood should
be provided as part of compensation in combination with monetary combination. This has been
done by few enterprises but not all. It is not necessary that giving jobs in the emergent industry
is the only way of securing livelihood for the displaced. Alternate tracts of lands can be allocated.

13
However, it should not be the case that arid land is given in lieu of fertile land. Alternate land
allocation should be done treating community as a unit of collective existence.

The major use of agriculture land is for such developmental purposes as building of shopping
malls, residential complexes, highways and petrol pumps. This does not automatically constitute
public purpose. The rationale of public purpose is that along with others it eventually benefits
the ones who have been dispossessed. However, such acquisitions for building urban housing or
multiplexes disproportionately benefit some sections of society. The benefits do not percolate to
the marginalized and the pauperized to the extent that they reach the capitalists and real estate
developers. This is the main reason behind protests against acquisition of land. If this continues
unabated, then many more protests will arise. Eminent domain cannot supersede the right of the
people to determine their own future and development. Instead of being more vigilant in
safeguarding the rights of the general populace if the state further removes itself from the realm
of accountability to the people it (notionally) represents in an electoral democratic system
(Sampat, 2008:27); more and more protests are round the corner. An example of this is the
protest in Singur, Hooghly district in West Bengal. TATA Motors proposed to build TATA Nano
plant in the Singur. The plant was constructed but the government faced opposition and its use
of eminent domain was highly contested by the general public and opposition alike. Eventually,
the project never took off and the acquired land is under litigation.

CONCLUSION

Land has always been and continues to be the arena for struggle and power. To avoid the
obstacles that land acquisition places in the path of development, a little extra than expected
compensation can please the land owners. A combination of compensation mechanisms can be
used to extend fair treatment towards the dispossessed and the excluded. A sensible balance
between the demands of industrialization and the needs of farmers and land owners need to be
established. The land use policy should be revised and made compatible with the contemporary
needs of the economy. While debating the process of future land acquisitions, there should be
policy mechanisms to promote the optimal use of already acquired land.
14