Land Acquisition, Public Purpose, Fair Compensation, Eminent Domain, Willing Land Giver, Binary Logistics Regression Model, Comb
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
International Journal of Applied Sociology 2013, 3(3): 59-69 DOI: 10.5923/j.ijas.20130303.3 Land Acquisition-Profiling the “Willing” Land Givers: An Indian Case Study Tapas Roy1,*, Sudas Roy2, Sayantani Roy Choudhury3 1Operations Management, Indian Institute Planning & Management (IIPM), Kolkata, 700091, India 2Marketing Management, IIPM, Kolkata-700091, India 3Economics, IIPM Kolkata 700091, India Abstract In the growing body of literature on the issue of “Land Acquisition”, not much work has been done to directly map the responses of the land losers or evictees on the issue of “involuntary” parting with land. This paper has attempted to “profile” the characteristics of the “willing” land givers who, given the fulfilment of their “expected” compensation, would make available their lands for alternative uses like industry, schools or hospitals. Three researchers from IIPM Kolkata have conducted a primary survey of rural households located in five districts of the state of West Bengal in India to profile the “willing” land givers. The survey has revealed that the respondents with higher “education”, bigger “landholdings”, belonging to “general caste” and engaged primarily in “non-agricultural occupation” are more “willing” to part with their lands. The study has also revealed that the respondents living in “kaccha (mud) houses” are more “willing”. The “willing” land givers expect compensation based on multiples of “current market value”. The study shows that this multiple has a rising trend as the location of the respondents keeps approaching Kolkata, the State’s political capital. Ke ywo rds Land Acquisition, Public Purpose, Fair Compensation, Eminent Do ma in, W illing Land Giver, Binary Logistics Regression Model, Co mb inatorial Analysis, Compensation Expectation directly through a primary survey. 1. Introduction 1.2. Structure of the Paper 1.1. Genesis of the Study This paper is sequenced as historical background and Growing pressure of population, rapid urbanization, literature review, followed by study rationale and objectives political quest for high GDP numbers and growing and then the main body of the paper featuring methodology impatience to enjoy a higher material standard of living, have and discussion. The paper ends with a conclusion. brought the question of land utilization to the political center 1.3. Historical Background and Literature Review stage in many countries. Any plan to build large scale manufacturing enterprises, and major physical infrastructure Historical records and the extant literature have broadly projects require large uninterrupted plots of land. This often studied and documented the issues related to land and land involves acquisition of land, raising complex issues of acquisition mainly from the following perspectives: a) legal “displacement” and “rehabilitation”, thus creating conflicts issues related to ownership rights; b) right of compulsory and adding to the real “cost” of land acquisition. India has acquisition by the authority or the principle of “eminent not been immune to this process. domain and the associated issue of compensation and c) Studies on the broad topic of “land acquisition” have so far political decision making process. confined themselves mainly to policy level analysis, analysis 1.3.1. Lega l Issues Related to Land Ownership of various judgments delivered by the judiciary or to formulate compensation models for what would be From time immemorial, land has always been a source and considered as “fair” compensation or to seek answers to what symbol of economic and political power. With the evolution constitutes public purpose or “eminent domain”. No attempt of society, a need was felt to define its ownership rules. has so far been made to gain insight into these issues from Irrespective of the form of governance, societies, in general, the perspective of the landowner by seeking his responses accepted the individual's right to own/lease, use, dispose of and bequeath lawfully acquired possessions including land. * Corresponding author: Over time, the concept of dominium (exclusive right) and [email protected] (Tapas Roy) Published online at http://journal.sapub.org/ijas imperium (overall right of the state) on property came in, Copyright © 2013 Scientific & Academic Publishing. All Rights Reserved reference to which could be found in Roman law (Jacob 60 Tapas Roy et al.: Land Acquisition-Profiling the “Willing” Land Givers: An Indian Case Study 2008b: P59)[1] and also in the Napoleonic Code of 1804 and different owners fixed different reservation prices (ibid59). These governing principles had given the state the reducing the probability of a successful purchase drastically. power of overriding authority to decide on the possession of Kalbro (2007)[6] has proposed a three- point test to the land while granting the individual her right to property determine the public interest: the benefits from the under this overriding condition. expropriation must exceed its cost, the value of the new land use must be higher than the existing use to the society and the 1.3.2. Eminent Do main buyer needs a particular area of land for which the seller is in The modern concept of right of the state to “eminent a monopolistic situation. domain” owes its origin to the legal treatise of Hugo Grotius Merill (1986)[7] in his “Basic Model” has argued that in a who upheld the authority of the State to infringe upon the “thin market”(where a seller can extract economic rents from property of subjects on all occasions, where ever the public a buyer because of the location of his property which is good was involved (Paul,1987 P74-75)[2]. This authority uniquely suited for the buyer`s need), “potential for was subject to the following two conditions: engendering rent seeking may make it economically efficient Expropriation was for public purpose and fair compensation to confer the power of eminent domain on a buyer”. But in a was paid without delay for such loss. “thick market” (highly competitive market) setting, eminent States have, in most cases, left the interpretation of the domain is more expensive than market exchange. He has fulfilment of the above two conditions to the judiciary. In termed the use of eminent domain as the “ends approach” spite of varying socio-political and judicial systems, since it concerns the purpose to which the land is put. judicia ries across the world have attempted to interpret the According to him judiciary has also generally adopted the conditions. The judgments being case specific, obvious “ends approach” by usually enquiring if the land would be differences cropped up in the interpretations. There have used to provide for public benefit. been instances where economic and legal experts have even Epstein (1985, P166)[8] held that the necessity and questioned the veracity of the state’s right to intervene. division of surplus must be present to satisfy the demands of a)Public purpose: the “public use” term. The basic theory of the public use “Public Purpose” has always been found important as a demanded that in forced exchanges the surplus must be reason for state intervention in order to implement evenly divided. He also argued that the degree of public development (“schemes”) projects of the infrastructure interest should dictate the level or amount of compensation variety commonly referred to as “public goods” for “public payable. In cases where there was a low degree of public use”. These interventions are essential to ensure ease of land interest, Epstein argued that the compensation should be assembly for implementing large scale projects to hasten higher. quick economic growth of a country/community. However, Bird (2010)[9] took a stand in favour of “necessity” over the years, the role of government in providing “public doctrine to limit the use of eminent power by judiciary. Here goods” has undergone change. Private participation has necessity implied imperatives or indispensability of the become a common practice in providing services which were parcel of the land for the purpose of the project. earlier typically in the exclusive domain of the government. Bird also quoted Lynch v. Household Finance Corp. (405 This has made the government intervention necessary for the U.S. 538)[10], to show that there was no distinction between projects to be implemented by the private enterprises as well. personal liberties and proprietary rights. It was recognized This has expanded the original scope of “public use” in the for long that rights to property were basic civil rights and eminent domain to include expropriation of land for private should be protected with the same standard of review that enterprises for economic rejuvenation. was granted to other fundamental personal rights. Mangioni(2009, p2)[3] has quoted Rosenberg to highlight It may be of interest to note the differences in the the density dilemma of the earth’s population, where ninety interpretation of the scope of “Public purpose” by the percent live on approximately ten percent of the land. This judiciary of a developed country like USA and a developing has increased the need for land near congested urban areas to country like India, where differences can be seen in the make provision for and renewal of public infrastructure and judgments delivered by the courts of both the countries over setting up of new industry. Governments have been using time. this imperative to justify the use of the “public purpose” Supreme Court of USA in the famous Berman vs. Parker clause.. case (348 U.S. 26)[11]