When you put a man in a vacuum, you rob him of the air.

You do the same, when you take

away the soil from him . . . for you are putting him in a space void of wealth, so as to leave
him no way of living except according to your wishes.
-Hippolyte Colins (1856), quoted in Marx (1976) cited in Araghi, F.
(2009).
The intensity of land acquisition tremendously went high and first decade of 21st
century witnessed one of the most brutal violence around land acquisition process in India.
Cases of violence in the process of land acquisition extended from Private players like
POSCO and Vedanta to state led acquisition at places like Nandigram, Singur, Forbesganj and
Nagri. There has been vibrant spirit of dissent growing against such forceful land acquisition
and this has been marked through various resistances. Question of land becomes more
important because it is an invaluable asset and unlike other resources it cannot be reproduced.
Land acquisition is justified through compensation, as it changes the nature from
appropriation to acquisition but rarely has been the promise of compensation met.
Land is an asset which provides food security, allows utilisation of skill which
landowner possess - by working on the land, it can be passed from generation to generation
thus provides security to several generations, and it is marketable and in times of crisis acts as
collateral (Venkateswaran, 2007). It is the most basic life support around which life of
billions of people depends and it is under constant threat in this neoliberal era.
Chandrashekhar (2010) argues that the neoliberalism facilitates primitive accumulation by
few against ordinary citizens, primarily peasants. There has been plethora of research on the
land grab based on Marxs concept of primitive accumulation, where he explained
enclosures of land and dispossession of peasants in England, and called it as an origin of
capitalism. In the neoliberal era this has been redefined by many experts and new concepts
like accumulation by dispossession (Harvey 2003), accumulation by displacement (Araghi
2009), accumulation by encroachment (Patnaik 2008) and accumulation by denial (Adnan
2011) has emerged. These concepts explain how through the process of land acquisition for
the developmental projects capital is being accumulated by dispossessing the subjects in this
neoliberal era. Such model of development has resulted in displacement and exodus of people
in different parts of the world. Alvares (1992) says brunt of capitalism has been most upon
southern peoples and landscapes. However the focus of my study is not the debate on
neoliberalism but the peoples perception and experiences. Neoliberalism and the

development discourse are contexts for framing peoples voices - but the objective of the
study remains the people and their experiences.
In post-independence period different land laws were enacted and many archaic
colonial laws were retained and most important among them was Land Acquisition Act,
(LAA) 1894. These laws facilitated process of land acquisition and in post-independence
widespread land acquisition has occurred on the name of developmental projects like dams,
infrastructure and industrial projects. However in post liberalisation era, there has been a
shift, both state and federal government has shown keen interest in the process of acquiring
land in order to attract more foreign investments. In 2005 government passed Special
Economic Zones Act (the SEZ Act), by which land would be acquired by state for private
industries. And this process culminated through passing of Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (LARR) Act, 2013. The
Act came into force from 1 January.
In spite of passing of so many land related laws post independence history of India
has been marked by continuous struggle and protest against land acquisition and in certain
cases stallation of the whole project. The perusal of the legal framework, related laws and the
practices of the state (including various agencies) requires understanding of the nature of the
state. So the debate over land acquisition and its process can be well understood if we
contextualise it in the neoliberal policies adopted by India.
Critic of LARR Act, 2013
In any liberal capitalist society law performs several roles simultaneously: it is both a
maker of hegemony and means of resistance (Lazarus-Black and Hirsch 1994) and India is
no exception. The rule of law was one of the colonial legacies which many countries in
post-colonial world embraced and made use of colonial legal system for their own ends. In
India Land Acquisition Act (LAA) 1894 is one among many colonial laws, and many
scholars like Pathak (2002), Singha (1998) and Gadgil & Guha (1993) have shown examples
of such practices in diverse fields.
Jairam Ramesh, the then Union Minister for Rural Development while debating on
the Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill 2013 said it conveyed the
governments determination to address widespread and historical injustices. (The Hindu,
August 30, 2013). This was one of the most awaited Bills in Indian history which was passed
after a hiatus of 119 years. Earlier Act governing land acquisition called Land Acquisition Act

(LAA) Act, 1894 was criticised for its giving unfettered power to state in terms of land
acquisition and for having no provision for resettlement of the dispossessed owners of land.
Such criticism was from civil societies, human rights activists as well as law enforcing
agencies. Gonsalves (2010) says, No statute in colonial India or independent India has been
used against the interests of the poor in such a systematic and widespread manner. G.S
Singhvi former justice of the Supreme Court of India while hearing a petition in the Supreme
Court remarked The Act has become a fraud. It seems to have been devised by people with a
sick mind who have scant regard for the welfare of the common man (Business Standard,
Friday 5 Aug 2011). Such harsh words were not only a comment on ongoing misuse of the
Act but rather it posed a bigger question of the legality and intention of the Act itself. He also
commented that the land is being acquired on the name of Public Purpose by invoking
emergency clause and warned state of future chaos which may arise due to such forceful land
acquisition. The debate over Public Purpose is quite long which is based upon the
principle of Eminent domain, a colonial construct. In the backdrop of such situation this Act
was seen as a new ray of hope by many.
If we look at the title of new act Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (LARR) Act, 2013 it can be broadly
divide into three parts, a) Fair compensation, b) Transparency in Land Acquisition, c)
Rehabilitation and Resettlement. The new Act seeks to provide for higher compensation
(which extends up to four times the market value), makes prior consent of landowners and
project affected people for land acquisition compulsory (80 percent in cases of private
companies and 70 percent for public private partnership projects), creates different agencies
(like Social Impact Assessment) and provides detailed time lines for each stage of the
acquisition process (it may extend up to four years), provides rehabilitation and resettlement
of affected families etc, which was missing in the earlier LAA, 1894. However LARR Act of
2013 nowhere addresses the main controversy regarding the state intervention in the process
of land acquisition on behalf of private industries. Burman (2013) argues that the
interventionist approach of the state in matters of land acquisition which is reflected in the
principle of eminent domain and is carried out on the name of Public purpose is not
challenged (which has remained central to the debate over land acquisition) rather it tries to
improve the existing condition by creating more agency and revising compensation and
rehabilitation and resettlement policy.
Principle of Eminent Domain: Is state a super landlord?

In previous section through a brief perusal of the new LARR Act, 2013, which
repealed the archaic Land acquisition Act (LAA), 1894, I have tried to argue that the new act
fails to contest interventionist approach of the state in terms of land acquisition. The state
derives power to acquire land from the principle of eminent domain, which on the name of
public purpose allows the state to acquire land. Eminent domain in its original formulation
was as follows, " The property of subjects is under the eminent domain of the state, so that
the state or he who acts for it may use and even alienate and destroy such property, not only
in the case of extreme necessity, in which even private persons have a right over the property
of others, but for ends of public utility, to which ends those who founded civil society must
be supposed to have intended that private ends should give way. But it is to be added that
when this is done the state is bound to make good the loss to those who lose their property".
The principle of eminent domain is based upon Benthams Utilitarian notion, which talks
about greatest good of the greatest number. Every so often under such notion rights of few
has always been compromised. However the critics of Utilitarianism denied such
interpersonal comparison of utility it was argued that there can be no scientific comparison
between wellbeing of one person to another, thus it cannot be greater or lesser than that of
any person.
The power to acquire land on the principle of eminent domain and citing public
purpose is often derived from the notion of the state as a sovereign state. Sovereignty and
sovereign state is also a result of modernity and is a concept drawn from international law.
However, it is undeniable that the basis of so many political and legal institutions we access
today have their roots in early modern political thought. The conception of the individual, the
role accorded to the state and conceptualisation of the organization of society in the
formulation of these institutions has passed on to us with few modifications brought about
through history. Renaissance in Europe fuelled the debate over natural rights of an individual
and his/her relation with the state. Hobbes influenced by Cromwellian revolution undertook
the task of conceiving a state which would take into account the rights of individuals. Hobbes
(1968) arrived at the conclusion that in order for individuals to co-exist in harmony and enjoy
their rights, it would be necessary for them to concede to being ruled by a sovereign power,
the leviathan or the state. Hence, even the right to property could be revoked when it was so
ordained by the sovereign who was acting in the public interest. However, a more elaborate
theory of what constituted the public interest came from the Utilitarians such as Jeremy
Bentham and the Mills. The influence of these canonical writings is still starkly apparent in

the formulation of the right of eminent domain today. Ramanathan (2010) argues that eminent
domain does not merely gives the state right to compulsorily acquire land for a public
purpose, but it also reflects the nature of the state which possess absolute power over all its
resources (land being important). The same principle once applied against zamindars aimed at
making redistribution of land possible is being now applied for acquiring land in favour of
private corporations.
Other side of this story:
However the issue of sovereignty becomes more pertinent in this era of MoUs, where
the state enters into the contractual relationship with the private industries. Such contracts
require the state to deliver on terms as agreed in the document, such as speeding up process
of and acquisition and governmental clearances. In this research, while doing fieldwork
several instances reflects such changing role of the state (from regulator to party to the
contract) and its obligations.
Compensation Debate
The new act gives more emphasis on compensation (Right to Fair Compensation)
considering it to be central to the debate of land acquisition. The compensation paid for such
acquisition changes the nature of this take from appropriation to acquisition (Ramanathan
2010). Such thrust over fair compensation is based on the premise that the small farmers
and other marginalised groups fail to make fair agreement with large-scale corporations and
there is sheer inequality in terms of bargaining. Often strong party, which is generally big
corporations gain from such contract and the contract, is signed in their favour. So
government plans to bridge this gap by bringing balance to this relationship. The
retrospective effect of this Act is believed to provide compensation based upon new rates to
all those who doesnt have received compensation yet or where no possession has taken
place. However this has created lot of hope among the project affected people as well as it
has also brought dissatisfaction among the private players.
The provision for just compensation in the new Act is based upon the hegemony of
logic of market rationality (i.e. fair exchange of commodities). The market is posited as the
arena of mediating social relationship based upon contractual agreements that bind these
relationships as free, and is believed to be governed by the norms of fairness and equality.
The underlying principle is that every individual has equal opportunity and equal is
exchanged for equal, there is freedom to make choices and each sells (properties) which

belongs to the individual is made through consent. Thus the fair business is based upon
consent, forming the bedrock of contractual agreements, which govern market economy. The
emergence of self-regulating market economy is also the result of capitalism. This is rightly
explained in Karl Polanyis work The Great Transformation, where he observes that before
the emergence of capitalism, the economy was embedded within the social sphere, along with
the political sphere and the religious etc. and dominated by the them. However, with the
emergence of the self-regulating market mechanism, there has been an effective
disembedding of the economic sphere from the social and it is the disembedded economic
sphere which now dominates society (Polanyi 1957). He further argues that there are three
constraints on the self-regulating market economy; they are land, labour and money. He calls
these fictitious commodities. A self-regulating market would require the commodification of
all three, only the commodification of these would completely subordinate society to the
economy. In the neoliberal era such capital transformation takes place through reorganisation
of property relationship and is driven by the urge of accumulation.
Critic of logic of market - defence of fair compensation.
The new Act tries to find solution to the conflict over land acquisition through the
logic of market by incorporating provision for fair compensation and obtaining consent of
the affected family whose land is being acquired. Such decision is dominated by the thought
of a requirement of a new land acquisition framework which is limited to few necessary
changes - not structural change in the framework. Many scholars have argued for necessary
changes in the land acquisition framework and making provision for rehabilitation as paretooptimal. Morris & Pandey (2007) suggest some necessary changes in the framework like
change in tax rates on land deals, addressing Title arbitrage, Hold-out problem etc. Such
steps are however wound healing mechanism not the cure for wound itself. There is some
inner contradiction in the logic of market itself, which makes compensation as not a fair delay
in land acquisition process. Sarkar (2011) lays down three major flaws in this political/policy
position:
a) Absence of wilful seller (Absent market) - The logic of market holds good in the cases
where people are willing to sell their land but the protest movements has shown that many
people are not willing to sell their land at all. So the claim of imperfect land market
(Ramesh 2011) which the Minister of rural development opines stands false. However the

absent market is a phenomenon developed out of the resistance movements and such cannot
be reduced to the compensation debate.
b) No possibility of standard rate - Since there is absence of market then in such cases
compensation replaces prices. But, unlike price in a market, compensation does not find
quantitative standard, so it leads to arbitrary and unscientific calculation of value.
c) Narrow understanding of the concept of consent- Generally consent is understood from
merely a liberal perspective which defines it as uncoerced individual will. Consent should not
be understood as merely someones decision to sell their land or not but the disagreement to
sell should be understood as a manifestation of denial of proposed model of development
(Sarkar 2011). The debate over compensation needs to be understood in a broad sense of
peoples choice as well as the market scenario, claimed to be fair based on the concept of
equal opportunity but is hardly fair and equal.
Is fair land acquisition possible?
If we look at the debates over and land acquisition and the context in which this new
Act was passed, then it would be no wrong to say that through eminent domain principle the
state has turned into an inverted Robin Hood who would take from the poor and give it back
to rich. Land acquisition becomes an important tool in this neoliberal era for accumulating
capital through dispossessing people. The new Act which replaces age old draconian law is
comparatively a small step for preventing market failure. No attempt has been made to
address the context and the cause of the market failure: the role of the state. The presumption
of interventionist approach of the sovereign state and its non-negotiability is the root cause of
the problem. No fair land acquisition can be imagined unless such approach of the state is put
in question and is thoroughly debated. Little can be imagined in present scenario where thrust
is on expansion of infrastructure, industrialisation and urbanisation is called inevitable.

Conclusion