LOK SABHA ___
SYNOPSIS OF DEBATES (Proceedings other than Questions & Answers) ______
Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Phalguna 19, 1936 (Saka) ______
SUBMISSION BY MEMBER
Re: Increasing Incidents of Thefts at MPs Residences
THE MINISTER OF STATE OF THE MINISTRY OF SKILL
DEVELOPMENT AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND MINISTER OF
STATE IN THE MINISTRY OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (SHRI
RAJIV PRATAP RUDY) responding to the issue raised by an Hon. Member said: After the session is over several hon. Members go back to their constituencies. Several times information is received regarding theft of minor articles from their residences. As the hon. Member said several articles and goods were burgled from Sudip Bandyopadhyay's residence. The Chairman, Housing
Committee held a meeting in this regard with the officials. We will hold a review meeting with the concerned officials and the Delhi Police Commissioner to decide to provide more security. We will certainly take action regarding the case brought to the notice of the House by the hon. Member. *MATTERS UNDER RULE 377
(i) SHRI RATTAN LAL KATARIA laid a statement regarding need to
provide adequate compensation to farmers who suffered damages to their
crops due to recent unseasonal rains and hailstorms in the northern region
of the country particularly in Ambala Parliamentary Constituency,
Haryana.
(ii) SHRI PRABHUBHAI NAGARBHAI VASAVA laid a statement
regarding need to set up a Krishi Vigyan kendra along river Tapi in
Bardoli Parliamentary Constituency, Gujarat.
(iii) SHRI RAMDAS C. TADAS laid a statement regarding need to permit
farmers of villages falling under the army camp area in Pulgaon in
Wardha Parliamentary Constituency, Maharashtra to utilize their land for
earning their livelihood.
(iv) SHRI RAHUL KASWAN laid a statement regarding need to formulate
policy and programmes to improve the agricultural productivity and
income of the farmers in the country.
(v) KUNWAR PUSHPENDRA SINGH CHANDEL laid a statement
regarding need to consider cultivation of betel leave as an agricultural
activity and extend necessary benefits to betel leave growers in Hamirpur
Parliamentary Constituency, Uttar Pradesh.
* Laid on the Table as directed by the Chair. (vi) SHRI P.P. CHAUDHARY laid a statement regarding need to provide
subsidy for natural fertilizers.
(vii) SHRIMATI DARSHANA VIKRAM JARDOSH laid a statement
regarding need to organize exhibitions for demonstration and promotion
of the achievements of students in the field of science and technology.
(viii) SHRIMATI RAMA DEVI laid a statement regarding need to ensure
active participation of Members of Parliament in planning, execution and
monitoring of Centrally sponsored development schemes in the States.
(ix) SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH laid a statement regarding need to
provide adequate funds for construction of Gaya-Bodhgaya-Chatra
railway line.
(x) SHRI RAKESH SINGH laid a statement regarding need to include
Jabalpur in the tourist circuit in Madhya Pradesh.
(xi) SHRI TAMRADHWAJ SAHU laid a statement regarding need to
provide free electricity for operation of motor pumps for supply of
drinking water in Chhattisgarh.
(xii) SHRI R. PARTHIPAN laid a statement regarding need to allocate funds
for gauge-conversion of railway line between Madurai and
Bodinayakkanur and construction of new railway line between Dindigul-
Sabarimala. (xiii) SHRI C. MAHENDRAN laid a statement regarding need to accord
approval to the proposal of government of Tamil Nadu for construction
of dams at Nallar and Anamalaiar in the State.
(xiv) SHRI SUVENDU ADHIKARI laid a statement regarding need to relax
the conditions of eligibility for Indira Gandhi National Disability Pension
Scheme.
(xv) SHRI BHARTRUHARI MAHTAB laid a statement regarding need to
release the funds allotted for various flagship schemes meant for Odisha.
(xvi) SHRI RAMA KISHORE SINGH laid a statement regarding need to
confer rights to members of Parliament regarding construction of roads
under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana.
(xvii) SHRI KAUSHALENDRA KUMAR laid a statement regarding need to
revive the closed sugar mills in Bihar and also provide a special package
for development of silk industry in Bhagalpur in the State.
(xviii) SHRI SHAILESH KUMAR laid a statement regarding need to set up a
AIIMS like institute in Bhagalpur, Bihar.
(xix) ADV. JOICE GEORGE laid a statement regarding need to safeguard
the life and livelihood of people living in and around the Bodi area of
Western Ghats selected for the proposed India-based Neutrino
Observatory.
STATUTORY RESOLUTION
Re: Disapproval of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) Ordinance, 2014
(No. 9 of 2014) - Contd.
And
THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN
LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT
(AMENDMENT) BILL, 2015 - Contd.
SHRI PRAHLAD SINGH PATEL: I stand to support the Bill to amend this Act. This Government can never be anti-farmer. After the enactment of the
Act states make the rules. I can say this with certainty that the present Bill is not anti-farmer. We all should work together to see that the poor farmers suffer no loss and also to safeguard the future of their children. In the amendment the government has made it clear that if lands of those wholly dependent on agriculture is acquired then a member of the family would be given employment. This is the promise of the government. There are about 20 thousand panchayats without even an acre of land which can be utilised for public purpose. What would they get for their lands? The compensation fixed was four times the market rate in the previous law. This is still the law. The new law will give more compensation. This
Government brought the ordinance in 2014 under which land of the farmers were acquired by NHAI. Earlier the farmers received Rs. 60,000-70,000 crore as compensation. Under this law they got about Rs. 1,40,000 crore as compensation.
Bansagar Project in my state was stalled for about 40 years due to land dispute.
The portion of golden quadrilateral project in my state, Madhya Pradesh and
Maharashtra remains incomplete only due to land dispute. There is a huge difference in the circle rate and the market at several places. In this regard our suggestion should be sought. The government should not remain dependent only on collectors. I feel that if a meaningful discussion takes place on this issue, it would be in the interest of the farmers. I only want to say that we are all here answerable to the farmers and workers.
SHRI GAURAV GOGOI: A balance was struck between the industries and the farmers in the Bill passed 2013. In this Bill there was a balance between development and the rights. Before this land acquisition was undertaken as per the
Land Acquisition Bill, 1894, under which lands of the farmers were forcibly acquired without adequate compensation. Under the 2013 Bill, the position of farmers became strong, their rights were expected. The Bill also had consent clause, social impact assessment, rehabilitation, resettlement and return of land provisions. In India whenever the poor and the week raised their voice the rich and the powerful muzzle them. This Government has rejected the Land Acquisition
Bill, 2013. It removed the consent clause and the social impact assessment provision. The farmers want these two basic features in the Amendment. It is said that land acquisition is very much delayed due to the consent clause, and that projects have become very costly due to social impact assessment. I want to ask what was the urgency to bring this Bill. The Government should have first assess the number of projects stalled due to land acquisition. This Government has betrayed the farmers. The farmers feed the entire country. I urge all the hon.
Members before voting on this Bill to think of Gandhiji's maxim and the poor farmers.
*SHRI RANJIT SINGH BRAHMPURA:
SHRI H.D. DEVEGOWDA: This issue is with regard to the farmers. I am still fighting for the cause of the farmers. I am not advocating for the Bill of 2015 or 2013. The 2013 Act has provided so many benefits to the farmers. We are all coming from the farming community. Farmers have not opposed any development. I had been Minister for irrigation for six years. I had never faced any problem of land acquisition so far as construction of major, medium or minor irrigation projects were concerned. Nobody has opposed the acquisition of land for the railway projects, irrigation projects and construction of national highways. No farmer is going to oppose any project if it is going to provide reasonable compensation. There is no dispute on providing land for infrastructure, whether it is industrial sector, automobile sector, manufacturing sector or service sector. I wish to draw the attention of the entire House to some very crucial and fundamental aspects of land acquisition for public-private partnership which,
* Please see Supplement unless adequately taken care of, turn the law into an instrument of loot in the name of development of infrastructure. I am not oblivious to the developmental needs of the country and to boost public infrastructure. I am also not against the public- private partnership model in principle. I wish to see the infrastructure development and the country to progress as much as the present Government wish. In this amendment Bill, the bureaucrats have been given safety. If farmers are called upon to make sacrifice for greater public good, then they always come forward.
Sacrifice of the farmers for the country has not been any less than those who lay their lives on the borders or in the war. Hence, I oppose this amendment Bill tooth and nail. By altering original decision that Government land was to be allotted at market price, it was made available at Rs. 10 per annum. Further, the company was also granted comfort for developing initially a four lane tar road instead of six lane concrete roads, further reducing its expenses. Now Company is charging heavy toll, highest in the country by developing a portion of tar road itself. Now you want to invite 100 per cent FDI in construction of railways, highways and many other projects. We are going to this take issue to the public and we will fight it till the last.
SHRI DINESH TRIVEDI: On the behalf of our party we will oppose this
Bill tooth and nail. I am hitting at the basic process of law making. The people as stakeholders have a right to understand what is happening. You have to circulate this draft to the stakeholders. Have you consulted the people who are going to get affected? Have you consulted the political parties? The Bill is so complicated that it will take some time for a poor farmer to understand it. Where is the draft circulated? Even before circulating the draft, you have brought the Ordinance. The
Committee of Secretaries in January 2014 had pronounced with due diligence and with the permission of the Government that henceforth whatever law comes into being has to be first circulated in a draft form. There has to be a wider discussion and after that only, the law will come, the Bill will come and we will debate. I am afraid you are going totally against your manifesto. Please send this Bill to the
Standing Committee. It is in the interest of the farmers. It is in the interest of the country.
SHRI CHIRAG PASWAN: All sort of discussions have taken place on this Bill in the House and among various alliance partners of the NDA. We put across to the Government, the wishes and aspirations of the people whom we represent. I am glad that despite the fact that we are a small party and have limited strength yet in the House, the Government gave due recognition and attention to our suggestions. I extend my sincere thanks to the Government. As a result of which, some amendments have been moved and these amendments amply reflect that the interests of the farming community would not be ignored. Our hon. Prime
Minister who himself comes from a rural background, had told in this House in unequivocal terms that this NDA Government will never do anything against the interests of the farmers and the poor. Industry and agricultural development are two wheels of same cart and both have to go in tandem. In this era of globalization, industries are our critical need. Unemployment is a serious issue relating to the youth. I have got an assurance from this Government that the way the industrialization is being given higher priority for development, the same priority will be accorded to the farmers in this Government. I on the behalf of my party support this Bill.
KUNWAR BHARATENDRA SINGH: I, through you, would like to invite the attention of the Government to three major points. All hon. Members present here in this august House are truly concerned for the rights of the farmers. If we make the land acquisition law so much stringent that there are no buyers for the land of the farmers than will it be interest of the farmers? Development of basic infrastructure will only increase the price of land of the farmers. Increasing population and decreasing land holdings of the farmers compel that the children of farmers get good salary jobs. Only industrialization can make it possible. If more land is purchased by the industrial units, the price of the land of the farmer would increase in the same proportion. Therefore, increase in the price of land is in the larger interest of the farmer. Under Magarpatta model in Maharashtra, the farmers have been given share after acquisition of their land. In Andhra Pradesh, the interest of farmer, landlord and those who have acquired the land have been reasonably reconciled. I would therefore request the hon. Minister to include these aspects. In Western Uttar Pradesh, a bench of high court is needed, national highways are needed and there is a popular demand for new railway lines and new railway stations. New airport is also needed. Many hon. Members have expressed their concern on the social impact assessment provision. Example of Bhatta
Parsoul has been often cited. Necessary provisions have been made in the proposed Bill along with the provision for transparency so as to check recurrence of such disputes in future.
SHRI DUSHYANT CHAUTALA: Today, in this House, every farmer wants to get rid of this Bill. Due to land acquisition, farmers are displaced and faced with the situation where they have to struggle to find an identity for themselves in the society. The Government says that land acquisition is necessary.
But why is it necessary around the metros only? We are not opposed to land acquisition for industrial development, railways and highways etc. Land is acquired but not put to use for long time. The Government speaks of affordable housing. Today, 9 lakh flats are lying vacant in Gurgaon. They should be allotted to the poor. But the Government is interested in acquiring multi-crop land and sell it to property dealers. 70 thousand acre land was acquired in Haryana in the last 10 years but this policy of the Government will not leave any land in Haryana after two generations. In this way land in the entire Haryana will be acquired. I would appeal to each and every Member of the House to save the farmers. Our party
INLD opposes this Bill and demands from the Government that the Bill be referred to the standing committee to consider the issues relating to the rights of the farmers, their consent and social impact assessment.
SHRIMATI ANUPRIYA PATEL: Agriculture is source of livelihood for
70 per cent of people in India and even today they are, mostly, poor people of the country. I am happy that they Government has considered the various objections of the opposition Members and the Members of alliance partners and brought many amendments as well. The main objection was on acquisition of multi-crop land on which the Government has brought an amendment. At the same time the
State Governments would conduct survey to prepare an inventory of unfertile land.
Multi crop land would be acquired only in case of unavailability of waste land and unfertile land in that State. Secondly there was a concern with regard to social impact assessment. The Government should certainly provide that out of the compensation paid to the farmers, a part is invested in the projects or the industrial unit being set up there to grant shareholding to the farmer in it. The Government has brought an amendment to provide for jobs to one member of the affected family of the tenant or the farm labour families. I appreciate this move of the
Government. The Government has brought an amendment that land would not be acquired for private hospitals and educational institutions. There is a need to make the laws more stringent to ensure action against the officials who violate the provisions of the Act. Provision of judicial tribunal at district level has been made.
There are already vast areas of land lying unused. That land should be put to use first. I request the Government to incorporate the maximum number of suggestions.
SHRI VIJAY KUMAR HANSDAK: I strongly oppose this Bill because it hurts the interests of the farmers and the tribals. We are not opposed to it if the land is used in public interest but this is going to benefit the industrialists only.
This is such a Bill which affects every man, every farmer of the country. There is a need to refer it to the standing committee. Some time back, hon. Prime Minister had said in Jharkhand that no one on the earth can snatch away the land of the tribals. Today, through this august House, I want to remind him of his words.
This act would snatch away the rights of the tribals. This is bound to benefit the capitalists only.
SHRI DILEEP SINGH BHURIA: At the time of independence, population of the country was 36 crore. At that time we had to import food grains. But today we are 125 crore and we are exporting food grains after feeding the country. This has been possible only due to scientific development. Today, the number of vehicles is increasing so we need roads too accordingly. We need power for agriculture. We can discuss the Bill in the House itself instead of referring it to the standing committee. I am a farmer and want the farmers not to be misled and I support the Bill.
SHRI THOTA NARASIMHAM: This Bill provides for land acquisition as well as rehabilitation and resettlement. One issue in India is that the records of land holding cannot be easily verified. This opens the possibility of disputes after purchase. From the year 2008, the main reason for the failure of our economic policies targeted to achieve substantial growth rate is due to languishing corporate investment. Three main reasons for these are environmental laws and clearances, problems with land acquisition and to provide effective infrastructure on time. In
India, land is an emotionally attached factor for most of the farmers. The
Government has to keep this in mind while acquiring land. The policies of the
Government should be farmer-friendly, common man-friendly as well as growth- friendly. There is a thin line between them. So, a balance has to be maintained.
Then only comprehensive growth can be achieved. When the acquisition of land is inevitable, farmers depending upon that land should not be jobless. All acquisitions require rehabilitation and resettlement to be provided to the people affected by the acquisition. I sincerely, thank the hon. Prime Minister, hon.
Minister of Parliamentary Affairs and also hon. Minister of Rural Development, who have come out with open minds to incorporate necessary amendments to this
Bill. I would appeal to all my colleague MPs to suggest measures to make this Bill more effective for the prosperity of our motherland.
SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR: The Bill which was passed in December, 2013 by our Parliament unanimously had certain revolutionary provisions to save the land of farmers going into the hands of capitalists. It was mandatory to get the consent of 70 per cent population of land owners in the concerned area where land was to be acquired for government and non-government projects. Now, this provision has been done away with in the present Bill. There are several shortcomings in this Bill and most of the state governments are against this Bill.
The Government wants to evict farmers from their precious land and this is absolutely illegal and unconstitutional. This Bill has also taken away the right of farmers to move court. The requirement of social impact assessment has also been done away with the Bill. Moreover, there is no time limit to start the project on the land acquired under this Bill. Private companies have been given the freedom of starting their projects whenever they want. The Government has changed the very definition of public purpose wherein private hospitals, educational institutions and private hotels have also been included for the purpose of acquiring land. Whereas in the original Act, the acquisition of land for these purposes was banned. I must say that the government has fully given in before the industrialists.
SHRI OM BIRLA: This Bill is for the development of the country. Today our country needs development so that farmers of each and every village get electricity and required infrastructure for all-round development of the country.
Today, the youth of the country require employment. Similarly, there is need of expanding our road and railway network. We need land for all these purposes.
This Bill will bring prosperity to the entire farmer community of the country. We need to attract industries for our 'Make in India' programme, so it is but obvious that we need to provide facilities to them for the purpose. If any industry comes up in a village, it is but natural that the nearby villages will also get benefitted by it.
On the one hand, this Bill ensures the prosperity and happiness of farmers, it also opens up new avenues of development of infrastructure, on the other. I, therefore, request, the entire House to pass this Bill unanimously so that farmers of this country can vouch for us that we always work to safeguard their interests.
SHRI P.V. MIDHUN REDDY: We would like to reiterate our stand on this Bill. First, we are opposed to multi-crop irrigable land being taken under the
Land Acquisition Act. Second, we want the social impact assessment clause to be retained in the same condition. Apart from the concerns of food security, the farmers, who are losing their lands, will be affected the most. In addition to the farmers, even the labourers, who are dependent on this land, will also be affected very much. We want the whole country to come under a uniform land acquisition procedure. In our State, Andhra Pradesh, the Government is following land pooling scheme wherein the farmers' land is taken by the Government without even paying one rupee and they are given back 30 per cent of their land in the form of developed commercial land. There is lot of ambiguity in this procedure. There is one more thing that the state is already in a financial crisis. There is a huge revenue deficit for the State and we are not sure where the money will come from to develop the capital. In the mean time, large tracts of fertile lands are being acquired by the Government without any clarity. To avoid ambiguity, all these things should be discussed further and there should be one Central Act on land acquisition.
SHRI ASADUDDIN OWAISI: After the parent Act came into existence, the Supreme Court had given various judgements upholding it. The Government has no reason whatsoever to bring an amendment. My request to the government is to show me one Government in the world which takes land from farmers and people, and resources of fishermen and give them to private individuals. This amendment is against Article 14 of Equality. The Government's argument is about eminent domain. So, this argument of eminent domain has to go along with right to equality and with public purpose. This Bill is nothing but a tool to exploit the people of India and to ensure that in this farce of development that all these corporates can take away all our resources.
SHRI P.P. CHAUDHARY: I would like to thank the hon. Minister that he has clarified the ambit of public purpose by incorporating Section 10(A) in the
Bill. This section has been incorporated for the projects concerning farmers which are of national importance. Today, the farmer asks us as to when the project of inter-linking rivers would take concrete shape so that they could get water for their fields. They also require electricity for irrigating their fields. Besides, they also want that there should be a road beside their fields. We need land for all these purposes. As for compensation, this has been increased fourfold. Moreover, there is no change in the provisions related to rehabilitation and resettlement. SHRI N.K. PREMACHANDRAN: The land issue is the core issue. It is the prime issue as far as the social development, economic development and even the cultural development of our country or the society as a whole is concerned.
Keeping this in mind, the UPA Government has legislated the 2013 Act. If we go through the Act also, it is giving fair compensation; it is providing just compensation. Resettlement is there; rehabilitation is there and also transparency in the land acquisition is also there in the Act of 2013. It is a wonderful legislation as far as the legislative process is concerned. I would like to know from the
Government as to what prompted them to deviate from the original stand which they had taken in the year 2013. This amendment rolls back all the basic features and positive features of the 2013 Act. The heart and soul of the 2013 Act is taken away by means of these amendments. Coming to the amendment number I relating to the consent and the social impact assessment. I would say that if the requirement of consent is being taken away from the original Act, it will be helping the forcible acquisition of land. The social impact assessment is the criteria so as to determine the price of compensation for the land owners whose land is acquired.
So, the determination of the compensation is lost and bargaining power of the farmers is also lost if social impact assessment clause is taken away. The dropping of the clause under which return of the land after five years if it remained unfertilized is also a retrogressive manner. The Government has said that this Bill will give additional benefit to the farmers. I would like to know what additional benefits the Government is talking about. Rather the Government is diluting several safeguards of the original Act. So, the Government is misleading the
House by making false claims. I would like to say that through this amendment entire spirit of the 2013 Act is compromised. This is just to appease the corporate and business houses. I strongly oppose this Bill.
DR. RAMESH POKHRIYAL NISHANK: The Members of Opposition have been continuously saying that this Bill is anti-farmer. The acquisition of land is absolutely essential for the development of infrastructure and meeting the defence needs of the country. I would like to underline my point by giving an example. In the year 2011-12, 20 major projects were cleared in the country and out of them 8 projects are still pending due to land acquisition issues. The total cost of these projects is Rs.1.65 lakh crore. The country has been suffering on this account. This Government is pro-farmer and also in favour of the coming generations of the farmers. I would like to congratulate the Government for bringing about this Bill under which the land owners are going to get timely and fair compensation for their land. This Bill has the provision of consent, compensation as well as rehabilitation. This Bill will lead to social upliftment, welfare of the farmers and will take the country on the peak of development.
SHRI RAJU SHETTY: I would like to ask this question from the
Government as to who is going to give account of the land acquired in the country till date. The Government should come out with a white paper about the purpose for which the land was acquired and the subsequent changes which were made in the use of the land that will throw a light on the fate of the land. A total of
5,72,000 hectares of land has been acquired in various states of the country in the name of SEZ. Out of this land 2,55,000 hectares of land has been lying unused.
When the land of the farmer is acquired, he has to run from pillar to post and has to bribe the officials in order to get his compensation but still they do not get it. I would like to suggest that the Government should ensure the share of farmers in any irrigation project or any toll road constructed on BOT basis, contract of which is given to a private company for collecting the toll.
SHRI RATTAN LAL KATARIA: The Opposition parties do not want to waste any opportunity of opposing this Bill because they are frustrated over the brisk pace of economic growth achieved under this Government. The previous
Governments including UPA grossly neglected the farmers and agriculture sector.
Today, the members of those parties want to derail the growth bandwagon of the country in the name of this legislation. I would like to know whether it is not necessary that the acquisition of land be made more easy for setting up the institutions and the industries when we talk about Make-in-India. I would like to congratulate the Government for taking this step.
ADV. JOICE GEORGE: Every attempt is being made, through the provisions of the Bill, to grab the land from the hands of the farmers. It will affect their livelihood options. As per our Constitution, the right to livelihood is protected and by this amendment the Government proposes to take away that Right. As per the
Chapter II of the 2013 Act, there is provision for consultation and provision for social impact assessment. But now the Government proposes to take away these two provisions in the Act. By taking these two provisions, the very purpose and purport of the 2013 Act is sought to be nullified.
SHRI DEEPENDER SINGH HOODA: I rise to oppose this Bill on behalf of my party. Through this House and on behalf of my party, I would like to send this message across to all the farmers of the country that we are not going to compromise with the
Government as far as this Bill is concerned and we are with the farmers of this country.
This Government is working against the interest of farmers and is favouring big industrialists and corporate houses. Through this Bill, Government is trying to take away the right of land from farmers. This Act was amended in 2013 after 120 years. I would like to ask from the Government why they are in hurry to bring amendment to this Bill.
There are three important points about this Bill. First is about consent Clause which is also soul of this Act. Government is trying to snatch away rights of farmers.
Development can be achieved only with farmers' consent. But farmers of this country are being projected as anti-development. On the basis of this very legislation, Supreme
Court has given such thousand acres of land back to the farmers on which no work was done during the last 5 years. But after the enactment of this Bill, farmers will be unable to get back their land. Social impact assessment is a principle concept of this Act which needs to be taken care of. We demand the Government that discretion in this regard should not be left upon to the States. It is my suggestion that at least 2 per cent reservation in government jobs should be provided to those farmers who have sacrificed their land for the sake of development of our nation.
SHRI NANDKUMAR SINGH CHOUHAN: Maximum amount of land has been acquired in my state Madhya Pradesh. Earlier, total area of irrigated land was 7.5 lakh hectare in Madhya Pradesh. But today after the land acquisition this area of irrigated land has increased to 30 lakh hectare in the state. Only 10-20 per cent of total land acquired has been used for setting up of industries whereas most of the land acquisition has been done for irrigation project, national highway projects and power project. If farmers are provided four times of the market rate they will be willing to give their lands to the
Government. No land will be acquired for private hospitals, private educational institutions and real estate. Employment will be provided to the one family member of those farmers whose land has been acquired. Land acquisition is necessary for infrastructural development. This Bill aims at nation's development and it is going to prepare the road map for the development of the country.
** ** ** **
ANOOP MISHRA Secretary General
**Supplement covering rest of the proceedings is being issued separately. © 2015 BY LOK SABHA SECRETARIAT NOTE: It is the verbatim Debates of the Lok Sabha and not the Synopsis that should be considered authoritative.
English and Hindi versions of Synopsis of Debates are also available at http://loksabha.nic.in.