The question of whether or not the compensation provided by the government for acquiring land from private individuals is sufficient constantly comes up when the topic of fair compensation is brought up. Since the country’s declaration of independence, the government has frequently purchased land from private individuals for public use as described in section 3(j) of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894. And in all of these acquisitions, the enduring question is whether or not the landowners have gotten just compensation. Numerous lawsuits have been brought in various appropriate courts with jurisdiction, alleging that the government’s pay for land acquisition was unfair and that the plaintiffs were entitled to further compensation for the loss of their land.
Additionally, when private firms buy any land for predetermined uses, the owners do not receive appropriate recompense from the businesses following the purchase of the land. Although the previous law (Land Acquisition Act, 1894) required that landowners get compensation or solatium, it has been observed that many disputes have arisen as a result of such transactions. Another issue was that people frequently filed lawsuits to protect their right to just recompense and believed they should continue doing so for longer in order to attract the attention of the government. Due to these actions, the government has suffered significant financial losses.
Additionally, when private firms buy any land for predetermined uses, the owners do not receive appropriate recompense from the businesses following the purchase of the land. Although the previous law (Land Acquisition Act, 1894) required that landowners get compensation or solatium, it has been observed that many disputes have arisen as a result of such transactions. Another issue was that people frequently filed lawsuits to protect their right to just recompense and believed they should continue doing so for longer in order to attract the attention of the government. Due to these actions, the government has suffered significant financial losses.
Right to Equal Remuneration
Both ancient and new laws grant the government the authority to purchase land for public purposes as specified in the acts themselves, thus it is crucial to determine whether the landowners are receiving just compensation before the government buys any property. Every landowner has the right to receive a fair price for the property they possess. The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act of 2013 has therefore been put into effect in order to protect the interests of landowners and other impacted parties and to give reasonable and fair compensation.
Ancient Law
Land Acquisition Act of 1894 The law was passed in 1894 with the intention of allowing the government to acquire land, and several changes have been made since then. The statute outlines the process by which the government and private businesses can purchase land. The Act’s Sections 4 to 15 deal with the government’s steps to acquire land, and Section 38 deals with the steps private companies must take to acquire land. The Act also specifies how much money the government must pay in compensation and awards to landowners in exchange for such a purchase.
Despite the fact that the Act contains provisions for compensation, a number of lawsuits alleging unfair compensation have been brought before the courts. Furthermore, the Act’s procedures for acquiring land and calculating the amount of compensation to be paid to landowners contain numerous flaws. The Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, the social and economic effects on the impacted families, as well as the environmental effects are not taken into consideration by the Act.
To overcome these gaps, the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 draft amendment bill and the draft proposal to grant the Rehabilitation and Resettlement policy statutory status were also offered. The Central Advisory Committee suggested combining the two proposals in 2011 and creating new legislation[i]. The Ministry of Rural Development published a draft Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill in 2011 for public comment[ii]. The law was introduced in the Lok Sabha in September, and on September 23, 2013, the President signed it and it was published in the official gazette.
New Law
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Transparency and Fair Compensation Act of 2013 The most recent law The Land Acquisition Act of 1894 has been abolished by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act of 2013 (hereafter referred to as the Act)[iv]. It includes provisions for land purchase as well as for rehabilitation and resettlement, both of which were missing from the prior law. Prior to the last few decades, there was no effective legal structure or consistent national law that addressed the right to just compensation when private land was taken for public use. The Act of 2013 makes an effort to close these gaps in earlier legislation.
Let us look at a relevant case in this matter.
Rajesh Kshetry’s Winning Case: Amit Kumar Pan & Ors Vs. Subrata Mukherjee & Ors for KMDA
The case of Amit Kumar Pan & Ors versus Subrata Mukherjee & Ors for KMDA was prosecuted by Senior Advocate Mr. Rajesh Kshetry. He was handling the case on behalf of the petitioner Amit Kumar Pan & Ors.
The issue was Amit Kumar Pan & Ors., owner of two premises, No. 3 and 4/1 Sarbamangala Lane, Kolkata comprising 0.2376 acres of land. The petitioner received the proposal for requisition and acquisition by KMDA in 1976 to maintain supplies and services essential to the common man, i.e., to create a marketplace to facilitate the availability of essential goods and provide a market place for hawkers.
As requested and desired by the respondents, the property was handed over in 1976. In 1978, the respondents informed that they did not need the premises and directed the concerned departments to release the above premises. Even after receipt of necessary directives, the property was not released and continued to be under their possession.
Failing to get their property back, the petitioners approached Senior Advocate Mr. Rajesh Kshetry to bail them out of this difficult situation and arrange to salvage their land.
His accurate and intelligent argument in the Ld. court compelled the respondents to return the property along with decent compensation.
Sr. Advocate Mr. Rajesh Kshetry once again succeeded in providing relief to the harassed petitioners, thus adding another feather to his cap.