Michael Corleone, the fictitious character from The Godfather would have said, “It’s an offer they can’t refuse’. That is the first impression on the cabinet decision to go in for direct purchase of land instead of following the lengthy
and cumbersome land acquisition route, which by the way, is tuned to acquire land at lower rates. The new policy envisages buying land at market rates just like a builder would buy land from an owner. Because the government is buying the land, the deal would be exempted from stamp duty, which would, hopefully, be a disincentive to convert part of the transaction into an underhand deal.
How would the new process work? First, the department
which needs land would approach the collector who will dispatch
a team to scout for land. Consent of the owners would be
obtained and the revenue department would process the sale
deed. On paper, this is really an offer difficult to refuse. In reality
a lot of things could go wrong.
Although the government has set
parameters for setting the price, in
the end the final settlement would
be determined by some hard bargaining.
What the land procurement
policy is silent on is the freedom
of the land owner to sell. The
major difference between the new
policy and the land acquisition act is that under the latter the
government makes clear its intention to take over land and the
only discussion is the price. Of course the new act placed a
lot more hurdles in the path of acquisition like rehabilitation
and consent of over 80 per cent of land owners. What would
happen if say, for some reason, the land owner refuses to sell?
Would the government scrap the project or use the land acquisition
act? Because, if that be the case then the procurement
policy would be the proverbial carrot, while the land acquisition
act would be the stick.
Taken without the acquisition law, the procurement policy is
toothless and final acquisition of land would depend entirely
on the price, which would have to be on the higher side, and
the freebies that the government is willing to offer like resettlement
etc. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to figure
out that the government has taken a leaf out of the building
lobby’s acquisition book. The building lobby is successful in
acquiring land because of the price it offers, also the willingness
to take on tenancy and encroachment headaches, and
the freebies it offers like apartments or villas. Can the government
compete on the same plane? The procurement policy
seems to suggest that it is willing to go down the beaten path
of the building lobby.
While one has to appreciate the government for attempting
to put in place a quicker way of acquiring land, the one question
that pops up is, who is going to be the immediate beneficiary
of this policy. This suspicion will always arise because
governments seldom give the electorate a peek at the whole
picture. On the other hand, if landlords agree, this could become
the fastest way to acquire land minus the heartburn and
litigation. If there is a meeting of minds, which would be nothing
short of a miracle considering that people prefer to err on
the side of suspicion when it comes to the government, this
procedure could become the blueprint for acquiring land, albeit
at a high rate.
