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 the land and the only issue for 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.
