“Farmers’ Right to Land
–a reading under human rights perspective”
-K G Krishnamurthy*
Abstract:
It is universally recognised fact that everyone
has the right to own property which shall not be deprived of arbitrarily. In
Indian context this right is a legal right. Looking at the farmers as a
community, deprival of land is violative of farmers’ right to life. They cannot
live without land. Farmers are conferred with right to live which includes the
accessory rights like, right to food,
forest, water, market, inherit, improvement of land, receive benefits from land, etc. The survival
of the members of the society is dependent on the right to food which springs
from Article 21 of the Constitution of India. For farmers, exercise of the
right to live cannot be possible without the right to land within the ambit of
the human rights. Again, the right to food is an integral part of right to life
which is met by the farmers alone. In pursuit of rapid industrial development
we should avoid to take away the farmers’ rights. It must be understood that the land resource
is limited and the reduction of agricultural land cannot be compensated by
monetary compensation or by creation of new jobs. To secure the right to food
of the society provision for conferring land right to farmers can only sustain
the society at large including the fauna and flora. Thus the author of this
paper makes an attempt to analyse the need to grant the land right to farmers’
community in the human rights perspective.
Key
words: Farmers’ right to land, Property right, Right to live, right to food,
land right as human right
“Farmers’ Right to Land
–a reading under human rights perspective”
-K G Krishnamurthy
“We will win (cultivate) this field with the Lord of the Field; may
he nourish our cattle and our horses; may he bless us thereby.
“O Lord of the Field! bestow
on us sweet and pure and butter-like and delicious and copious rain, even as
cows give us milk. May the Lords of the water bless us.
“May the plants be sweet unto us; may the skies and the rains and
the firmament be full of sweetness; may the Lord of the Field be gracious to
us. We will follow him, uninjured by enemies.
“Let the oxen work merrily; let the men work merrily; let the plough
move on merrily. Fasten the traces merrily; ply the goad merrily.
“O Suna and Sira! accept this hymn. Moisten this earth with the rain
you have created in the sky.
“O fortunate Furrow! proceed onwards, we pray unto thee; do thou
bestow on us wealth and an abundant crop.
“May Indra accept this Furrow; may Pushan lead her onwards. May she
be filled with water, and yield us corn year after year.
“Let the ploughshares turn up the sod merrily; let the men follow
the oxen merrily; may Parjanya moisten the earth with sweet rains. O Suna and
Sira! bestow on us happiness.”[1]
INTRODUCTION:
Land, forest and water are very fundamental
to the livelihood of the farmers. Land is a source of food, shelter, income and
social identity for farmers. They serve others and enjoy their livelihood and
attain salvation. It is a natural right. Any provision of law which runs
counter to such a right must be treated as unconstitutional.[2]
We have known
about the farmers and their functions. But we do not know they are subjected to
many problems which are compounded and neglected for many years. Those in
power, middlemen, etc. have been exploiting this farmers’ community as this being
an unorganized sector. This community with 48.9 per cent [3] of
our population must be given much importance as they are fulfilling the
livelihood of all the persons in the globe.
The United Nations International
Convention on Civil and Political Rights declares that ‘every human being has the inherent right to life. This right
shall be protected by law and no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.’[4] This inherent right includes many other rights as declared
by the Apex Court while interpreting the Article 21 of the Constitution which
are equally applicable to the farmers like right to food, water, environment,
shelter, etc. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India[5] the Apex court has pronounced that the expression ‘Personal
Liberty’ in Article 21 is of the widest amplitude and it covers a wide range of
rights that go to constitute the personal liberties of man.
Justice Bhagwati said: "…
fundamental rights represent the basic values cherished by the people of this
country since the Vedic times and they are calculated to protect the dignity of
the individual and create conditions in which every human being can develop his
personality to the fullest extent." [6]
Agriculture was not, and is, in certain
parts, even today, not dependent on others. The farmers were cultivating land
with self labour, use their own manures and forest wastes, traditionally
preserving the seeds for next season out of the crop harvested. The crop
yielded is utilised for daily life and only the excess was, locally, marketed.
Today’s global modernity and liberal attitudes have made the agriculture
dependent on others. This new character has put the agriculture under major
threat for survival, putting farmers struggling for their right to life[7],
disturbing the right to, human dignity[8]
and compensation[9].
The number of farmers is gradually diminishing[10]
due to scarcity of agricultural labourers, costly investments, loss of crop due
to weather fluctuations, problems of marketing and low price for the crop
grown, attraction modern city life for young generations as well as free schemes
of the governments. If this continues there will be no good number of cultivators
in the future. The question is -can government on its own cultivate the lands
securing food for everyone? It cannot. So the right to land cannot be kept in
the hands of the Government. Anna Eleanor Roosevelt has said, “Certain rights
can never be granted to the government but must be kept in the hands of the
people”; “a right is not something that somebody gives you; it is something
that nobody can take away”[11] which are equally applicable to agriculture.
FARMERS AND THE CONSTITUTION:
The Indian Constitution originally
recognised the right to property under Articles 19(1) (f) read with 19(5) and 31. Article 19
guaranteed to all citizens the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property.
Article 31 provided that "no person shall be deprived of his property save
by authority of law." It also provided that compensation would be paid to
a person whose property has been taken for public purposes. By 1st Amendment
to the Constitution in the year 1951 the state wanted to pursue nationalisation, take away lands from
the zamindars, re-distribute them, and make special provisions for the socially
and economically backward. Further the First Amendment that brought in Articles
31A and 31B conferring upon the state the right to make laws to acquire private
property and to deem such laws as not being discriminatory and to further
protect all such laws from any judicial review by creating something called the
Ninth Schedule. Stressing the judicial review power of the Court, in I R
Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu,[12]
Chief Justice Y K Sabharwal has said, “If laws put in the Ninth Schedule
abridge or abrogate fundamental rights resulting in violation of the basic
structure of the constitution, such laws need to be invalidated.” Justice,
liberty, equality and fraternity within the farmers’ community is fundamental.
Within it all farmers shall be treated equally[13]
without any discrimination[14].
The Constitution does not create any reservation or special provision for land
rights for any class of farmers. All the farmers are equal and all are entitled
to the rights connected with agriculture and livelihood. Thus the author suggests for removal of the
Special provision for Schedule caste and Schedule Tribes under Section 41 of
the LARR Act as they fall within the class of farmers community irrespective of
caste, religion, etc.
The right to acquire, hold and dispose of property has
been removed from part III of the Constitution by the 44th
Constitution (Amendment) Act, 1978. And in Part XII of the Constitution,
Article 300 (A) was inserted to affirm that ‘no person shall be deprived of his
property save by authority of law’. The result of it the right to property is
now substituted as a Constitutional right. To speak strictly, it is more than a
legal right and lesser than fundamental right. The amendment expanded the power
of the state to appropriate property for social welfare purposes or for legal
plunder. This is one of the classic examples when the law has been perverted in
order to make plunder look just and sacred to many consciences.
The Land laws[15]
have recognised that the agricultural land shall be transferred to
agriculturists only and none to others. With respect to acquisition and holding
of agricultural land by certain persons is also prohibited.[16] Further in case procedure for transfer of
land the transferee shall produce a declaration and document to establish that
he is an agriculturist[17].
Such being the case the farmers forms a class under Art. 14 of the Constitution
and there shall not be any discrimination among the farmers community with respect
to the benefits, welfare measures, insurance, extent of land (Land Reforms Act
makes classification of land on the basis of fertility and irrigation as Class
A, B, C & D. Land Revenue Act also classifies the land as wet, dry land
etc.) price for the yields for each
crop, irrigation, pasturages, etc.
RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD AND LAND:
With
the fast growing changes in industry and technology and their contribution to
the growth of the country though a large, people who cultivate lands are very
much important and without them no one can survive. There is a
jural-relationship between farmers and the nation. If this relationship is
damaged the life of both will be in danger. To avoid this danger the right to
occupation is conferred on farmers under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution
along with other rights[18]. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution ensures
life with liberty, and the Supreme Court, in Delhi Transport Corporation[19], has said that the dignity of person is
with means of livelihood, without which the glorious content of dignity of
person would be reduced to animal existence.
The
Right to Livelihood and Land is very closely related to the human right of all
which enables them to live in dignity, security, justice and peace. The farmers
have the natural human right to fulfill dignified work and livelihood,
including equal access to land. Without land a farmer can do nothing. From the
context of farmers it should be a fundamental right to have access to land. By
insertion of Article 300A[20]
to our Constitution, the property right has been modified into constitutional
right. It prescribes that the Government cannot interfere with property rights
of an individual without, the authority of the valid law[21],
the consent of the owner[22]
and cause development of the culturable lands for the purpose of agriculture.[23]
The farmers are living with finding
their livelihood in land in spite of natural disasters, price fluctuations, and
high investment in agriculture. It is the occupation which protects the human
rights of the peasants. But the tragedy is that despite increased food
production with the advent of Green Revolution, for the past 20 years India has
been a net importer of agricultural food commodities[24]
as a result of globalisation, commercialization and industrialization of
agriculture.
It is very much necessary that there must be
a sustainable development but not at the cost of degradation of land by use of
chemical pesticides and fertilizers, etc. or rising costs and reducing the
returns, exploitation of resources, decline in area of cultivation due to
conversion of land, rampant urbanisation[25],
establishment of Special Economic Zones in fertile lands, etc.
The sustainable development must have to meet
the need of present generation without compromising the ability to meet the
need of the future generation[26].
The farmers were concerned with social responsibility and utilizing the land
properly to balance all the needs of society. This protected and preserved the
right to property of the farmers ensuring the livelihood. However, by emergence
of globalisation, liberalisation, industrialization etc., this social
responsibility is being commercialised to gain more and more profit.
ACQUISITION OF LAND:
As mentioned above, the state can
acquire the property only for public purposes with valid authority of law[27]
and consent of the farmers[28].
The Government has exempted the application of chapter II and III of The Right
to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act 2013 ( in short LARR Act, 2013) for certain projects. Article
300A of the Constitution provides that the right to property may be curtailed,
abridged or modified by the State only by exercising its legislative power and
in accordance with due course of law. Any acquisition or resumption of
possession of property by an executive order[29]
or by force[30]
is unconstitutional. The Court has asserted that in the absence of a specific
statutory provision, a person cannot be evicted by the executive by force
without following ‘due course of law even on the ground of public interest’[31].
It shall be understood that the acquisition should be fair and reasonable and
not arbitrary and the law should also satisfy the principle of fairness in
order to be effective[32].
Thus the law relating to acquisition of property must also satisfy Art.21 of
the Constitution protecting the right to livelihood of farmers. It is clearly
observed by the Constitution Bench in Olga
Tellis case [33]
that if the right to livelihood is not treated as a traditional right to life,
it will be an easiest way of depriving a person of this right to life and to
deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation. Such
deprivation would not only denude the life of its effective content and
meaningfulness but it would make life impossible to live. The deprivation,
therefore, must be consistent with the procedure established by law[34]. Protecting the right to livelihood of farmers’
community, Section10 (3) of the LARR Act, 2013 has provided positive
direction to the appropriate Government to develop the culturable waste lands
for the purpose of agriculture.
Acquisition of agricultural land for
non-agricultural purpose will be violative of the human right of the entire
society. To protect the rights of the farmers as well as to ensure the food
security of the nation it is very much necessary to impose strict restriction
on conversion of farm lands in to non-agricultural purposes and extension of
townships. It is also necessary to impose self restriction on acquisition of
agricultural lands for formation of industrial hubs/layouts/zones, formation of
housing layouts and other developmental works. Further, the author suggests
that the government shall declare the minimum and maximum ceiling limit on land
for the farmers irrespective of caste, religion, etc. It is a need to make specific
allocation of land for agriculture exclusively depending upon the population
and requirement of food for the public including the farmers. Right to land for
cultivation is the right of the farmers’ community. This will ensure the
community interest to sustain the right to food.
COMPENSATION AND LAND:
In respect of acquisition of land[35]
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Chameli
Singh’s case, has said that in every acquisition by its very compulsory
nature for public purpose, the owner may be deprived of the land, the means of
his livelihood[36].
Stressing the protection of livelihood of farmers in Sunder v. Union of India[37]
the Supreme Court has said, “When the land is being compulsorily taken away
from a person, he is entitled to the highest value which similar land in the
locality is shown to have fetched in a bona fide transaction entered into
between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near about the time of the
acquisition. They are also entitled to interest on solatium, additional market
value.”[38] The
Hon’ble Court has applied the ‘rule of annual increase for grant of higher
compensation’[39] in awarding the relief[40].
Further,
the Supreme Court has shown serious concern over the inordinate delay in
payment of compensation to farmers for land and held that it amounts to
deprivation of livelihood, which is a violation of Article 21 (right to life)
of the Constitution. In Tukarama[41]
it is said, “Even under valid acquisition proceedings, there is a legal
obligation on the part of the authorities to complete the proceedings at the
earliest and to make payment of requisite compensation. The appeals etc. are
required to be decided expeditiously for the sole reason that if a person is
not paid compensation in time, he will be unable to purchase any land or other
immovable property.” Continuing, Chauhan, J. has made a serious observation
that, “It is not permissible for any welfare state to uproot a person and
deprive him of his fundamental/constitutional/human rights under the garb of
industrial development… Statutory authorities are not only bound to pay
adequate compensation but there is also a legal obligation upon them to
rehabilitate[42]
such persons. The non-fulfillment of their obligations would be tantamount to
forcing the uprooted persons to become vagabonds or to indulge in anti-national
activities as such sentiments would be born in them on account of
ill-treatment.” The enrichment of a
welfare state or of its instrumentalities, at the cost of livelihood of farmers,
is not permissible. “Depriving them (i.e., farmers, having no other occupation
or business) of their lands was a clear violation of Article 21”[43].
It is inhibited under the provisions[44]
of the LARR Act 2013 (as an exception) if it is inevitable to acquire land left
with no alternative the land may be acquired by the state for the public
purpose.
Section 26 and other provisions of the LARR
Act 2013 has provided for the compensation
payable against the acquisition of land and courts have time and again directed
the governments to provide compensation which is a just equivalent of what the
owner has been deprived of. In Ranjit Singh’s[45]
case the Court applied the rule of 10% yearly increase for award of higher
compensation. Still the governments have not come out with clear norms as to
what shall be the compensation, how to determine the market value, how and when
the amount be distributed, etc. We have crossed a century and odd period with
Land Acquisition Act but there is no clear provision in respect of payment of
compensation. Even in case of the market value there is a big gap between the
actual market value and government rate. The lesser efforts of the government
and making the citizens to approach the court of law are amounting to violation
of right to life. The government should remove this anomaly by making a
compensation policy. Amidst growing land acquisition rows across the country
the Supreme Court has sadly observed, "We think if the state formulates a
reasonable compensation policy, then these types of disputes would not arise.
We are frequently witnessing these types of problems. Why don't you (the Government) come out with a proper compensation
policy for the land owners?”[46] Further in case of compensation, it shall be
paid without making delay. If it is delayed the acquisition deemed to be lapsed
and void[47].
With this legal position as to compensation for acquisition of lands, the
author is of the opinion that the
Farmers should not be provided with compensation against acquisition of their
agricultural land but they must be given the land itself. In case the farmer gives up his position as
farmer or rejects offered land then only he shall be made entitled to compensation
for his rehabilitation and resettlement. So the author proposes for inclusion
of a provision, in the said LARR Act, that the farmers whose land will be
acquired shall be allotted equivalent land in the vicinity or elsewhere as they
are dependent on agricultural land. This provision will strengthen the duty to
cultivate the land and surely ensure the food security. To more specific the
payment of rate or compensation will not protect the right to food of the
society.
RIGHT TO
HONOUR AND REPUTATION:
The right to acquire, to hold and to
dispose of the property as conferred under Article 300A of the constitution
will ensure the farmers’ right to honour and reputation. Interference or attack
on these rights is objectionable and state shall endeavor to protect the right
from arbitrary interference and attacks on honor and reputation[48].
Land grabbing[49],
high interest on loans, low price for the produces, deforestation, raising
acacia and the like plantations in pasturages, dumping of construction wastes
in the canals or ponds or streams, and the like are attacks upon farmers’ ‘honour
and reputation’[50] which will be violative
of fundamental rights conferred under
Part III of the Constitution of India.
FARMERS AND FOREST:
India has 78.29 mha land under the
forest & tree cover, which is 23.81per cent of the geographical area of the
country[51]
and the extent of agricultural land is 60.3 per cent (during 2012) of the total
land which includes arable, under permanent crops and under permanent
pasturages.[52]
The data shows that there is a big gap between the forest land and the farm
land. The forest system contributes to and improves the food security and
nutrition, fertility of land, watershed, etc resulting in survival of the
society. With respect the farmers’ community forest land is very much essential
for prosperity of the farmers and the nation. It is inevitable for the farmers to use the
forest produce for cultivation. The deforestation has made the farmers to use
the chemical fertilizer or other chemical products to get their yield protected
but the use of such chemicals are hazardous to life. To protect the life of the
farmers and the public and to sustain and stabilize the forestry it is
necessary domesticating the forests granting private ownership[53] to
the farmers adjacent to their farm land on a permanent productive basis. Or
some portion of the farm land shall be utilised to develop forestry.[54]They
shall not be permitted to convert the forest in to non-forest use. This type of
forestry was developed in North Canara District now in Karnataka. This area was
governed by Bombay Land Revenue Code 1879 and the then Government passed the
Betta Rules[55](normally
called so) granting forest land to the
Areca growers.
The Central Cabinet
has approved the National Agro-forestry Policy 2014 on 6th February, 2014. This
National Agro-forestry policy (Mission)[56] aims
to integrate trees and shrubs on farmlands and rural landscapes to enhance
productivity, profitability, diversity and equilibrium in Eco-system. With such
medications as suggested in previous paragraph the policy is implemented the
farmers right to life and the national food security will be achieved
prosperously.
FARMERS AND WATER:
The demand for water in the urban
areas and industries as well as the rural projects has created a gross shortage
of water for irrigation. The major and small check dams/ponds are dumped with
construction wastes in the name of development. Because of deforestation and low-
rain fall there is sharp drop in the underground water level. These will have
much negative impact[57]
on farmers’ community. These effects may be reduced by reconstruction of check
dams at suitable places and thereby the livelihood of farmers would be
enhanced. The natural resources are national assets and the state acts as
trustee on behalf of its people.[58] It is a duty[59]
to preserve, improve the natural resources and maintain them in proper manner
benefiting for present as well as future generations. Thus, it is
necessitated to construct or reconstruct check dams, lakes, ponds, etc., and
develop a small forest planting with mango, jackfruit, and like trees around
the check dams or lakes. The forest so developed, will address the needs of
farmers’ and others, protect water resource, fertility of lands, and the total
environment and also protects lake, etc. from illegal encroachment. As viewed
in the previous heading ‘farmer and forest’, it is possible to replenishment of
water by development and maintenance of forest. The farmers alone can best
perform in preservation of water provided land right ensuring the food
security.
NATIONAL POLICY FOR
FARMERS 2007:
The
major goals of the National Policy for Farmers 2007[60] (NPF)
may be achieved in a better manner by amending the Constitution granting land
rights to the farmers as a fundamental right. The policy is indirectly
supported the grant of land rights by stating "prime
farm land must be conserved for agriculture except under exceptional
circumstances, provided that the agencies that are provided with agricultural
land for non-agricultural projects should compensate for treatment and full
development of equivalent degraded or wastelands elsewhere"[61]. The
economic development of the country as well sustainable ecology is very
important in the present era together with livelihood of the farmers and food
of the globe. The decline in the contribution of agricultural sector to the
gross domestic product (GDP) of the country from 30 percent (in 1990-91) to
13.7 per cent (in 2013-14)[62] and
decline in the agricultural land (mentioned earlier) is a very serious concern.
The NPF aims at protecting the human rights of the farmers in toto. But the
lack of awareness among the farmers about the policies and schemes of the
government affects the rights of the farmers.
FARMERS’
SUICIDE:
The numbers of suicide cases by
farmers due to agrarian reasons was 11.2 per cent in 2012[63]
and have increased to 26 percent in 2014.[64]
The Government and other
Non-Governmental associations and Social Organisations have trying to reduce
farmers’ suicide by making various welfare measures like support price,
exemption in repayment of loan, loan at reduced rate of interest, etc. Even
after these measures the rate of suicide is not reduced but increasing. This
year of 2015 will witness further more suicides by farmers. Such being the case the author is suggesting to
the Government to recognise the land right as fundamental right of the farmers’
community as there will be security. Further to protect the interest of the
farmers’ community it would be necessary to impose restrictions on agricultural
mortgages and power of attorneys under which the innocent farmers are being
easily trapped. The illiteracy, innocence, fairness, urgency of the farmers are
opportunising others to defraud the farmers under the guise the above
documents. It’s clear case of violation human rights of the farmers. This shall
be curbed through legal measures and creating clear awareness among the
farmers.
CONCLUSION:
Farmers
are working throughout the year without rest and at all situations that may
come disturbing the life taking care of the survival of the society. Without
farmers there will be no food, agricultural growth and sustenance of
environment. Thus protection of the farmers’
rights in relation to their land is absolutely essential to ensure the food
security and to rejuvenate or revivify the natural resources. There is a need of proper coordination between the Centre
and the State in this regard as the agriculture is the Central Subject and land
& irrigation are the State Subjects in the law making process. Further
there shall be awareness among the farmers as to land rights[65]. Right to cultivate of the farmers’ cannot be
taken away even by a law passed by the Parliament of India even if all the Members
of Parliament vote favoring it. Deprival of farmers’ right to land will violate
their human rights. A struggle for land right is eventual for the survival of
farmers and is essentially a secular movement.[66]
****
*
Research Scholar, Kuvempu University, Shankaraghatta, Shivamogga; Principal,
Vivekananda Law College, Puttur, DK, Karnataka
[1] Rigveda, Book 4, hymn
57, http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rvsan/rv04057.htm: translation in
http://www.ibiblio.org/britishraj/Jackson1/chapter03.html
[2] Confederation of Ex-servicemen
Association v. Union of India AIR 2006 SC 2945
[3] chapter –2A, farmer
suicides in india p.266, Annual Report, Accidental deaths & suicides in
India- 2014, Retrieved from http://ncrb.gov.in/ADSI2014/adsi-2014%20full%20report.pdf
[5] AIR 1978 SC 597
[6] In Maneka Gandhi v.
Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597
[7] Art. 21 of the
Constitution of India
[8] Francis Coralie
Mullin v. The Administrator, AIR 1981 SC 746; Mohini Jain v. State Of
Karnataka AIR 1992 SC 1858
[9] Article 31 of the
Constitution
[10] The agricultural sector
is maximum employment provider with 54.6 per cent according to 2011 census
though the number of cultivators is reduced to 118.7 million (census 2011) from
127.3 million (census 2001), Retrieved from http://www.kpmg.com/IN/en/services/Tax/FlashNews/India-Economic-Survey-2013-14–Key-Highlights.pdf,
Last visited on 28/12/2016
[11] Retrieved from
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=right, Last visited on 28/12/2016
[13] Article 14 of the
Constitution
[14] Article 15 of the
Constitution.
[15] Section 80 of
Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961
[16] Section 79A, &79
B of Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961
[17] Section 81 A of
Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961; part B of Circular I of
NOTIFICATION u/s 22A of the Registration Act, 1908(Opposed to Public
Policy)Notification No. RD 56 munosa 99 dated 10-5-1999
[18] Occupation,Trade,
travel, profession, etc., under Art. 19 of the Constitution of India.
[19] Delhi Transport Corpn. v. D. T.C. Mazdoor
Congress, (1991) Suppl. 1 S.C.C. 600;
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation
AIR 1986 SC 180
[20] The Constitution (44th
Amendment) Act 1978
[21] See also, Youngstown Steel and Tube Co.
v.Sawyer 343 US 579 (1952)
[22] Chairman, Indore
Vikas Pradhikaran v. Pure Industrial Coke and Chemicals Ltd, AIR 2007 SC 2458;
Section 2(2) of LARR Act 2013
[23] S.10 of the right to
fair compensation and transparency in land acquisition, rehabilitation and
resettlement Act 2013
[24] see Francis Ng and M. Ataman Aksoy, ‘Who Are the Net
Food Importing Countries?’(2008), Retrieved
from https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/6454/wps4457.txt?sequence=2
[25] Level of urbanization
in India has increased from 17% in 1951 to 31% in 2011, Retrieved from http://dolr.nic.in/dolr/downloads/PDFs/Draft%20National%20Land%20Utilisation%20Policy%20(July%202013).pdf,
Last visited on 28/12/2016
[26] World Commission on
Environment and development, 1987 called as The Brundtland Commission Report
[27] The
word ‘Law’ in Art.300A means an Act of Parliament or a State Legislature, a
rule or a statutory order, having the force of law, that is positive or
State-made law (Jilubhai Nanabhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1995 SC 142
at p. 158; Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P., AIR 1982 SC 33
[28] Section 2(2) of The
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013
[29] Bishamber Dayal
Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1982 SC 33; Bishan Das v. State of
Punjab AIR 1961 SC 1570
[30] State of West Bengal
v. Vishnunarayan & Associates (2002)4 SCC 134; State of
Uttar Pradesh v. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh AIR 1989 SC 997
[31] Ibid (WB v. vishnunarayan)
[32] Maneka Gandhi’s case
AIR 1978 SC 597
[33] AIR 1986 SC 180
[34] Radhey
Shyam v. State Of U.P (2011)5 SCC 553
[35] New Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013
[36] Chameli Singh v.
State of U. P AIR 1996 SC 1051
[37] (2001) 7 SCC 211; Gurpreet
Singh vs. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 457
[38] Per, P. Sathasivam
and J. Chelameswar Jj. in Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (R) v. State Of Punjab (2012) 5 SCC 432; reported in The Hindu,
April 28, 2012
[39] In Ranjit Singh v. U
T of Chandigarh (1992) 3 SCC 659; Delhi Development Authority v. Bali Ram
Sharma (2004) 6 SCC 533; Union of India v. Harpat Singh (2009) 14 SCC 375
[40] In
Bela Banerjee’s case (AIR 1954 SC 170) it was held, ‘the Legislature must
ensure that what is determined as payable must be compensation, that is, a just
equivalent of what the owner has been deprived of”. This was held under Art.
31(2) of the Constitution (now deleted). In R.C. Cooper’s case (AIR 1970 SC
1461) the Court observed: ‘Art 31(2) before and after it was amended guaranteed
a right to compensation for compulsory acquisition of property.’
[41] Tukaram Kana Joshi v.
M.I.D.C. (2013) 1 SCC 353, Per, B.S. Chauhan and J.S. Khehar Jj
[42] Developmental projects in India have
displaced millions of people and yet there is not a single national
legislation on rehabilitation. Though the judiciary has recognised the
right to be rehabilitated as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, the right was not granted in reality
(Arundhati Roy, Lies, Dam Lies and Statistics, The Guardian, June 5, 1999)
[43] Tukaram Kana Joshi v.
M.I.D.C. (2013) 1 SCC 353; reported in The Hindu, November 11, 2012
[44] Ss. 7, 8 and 10 etc.
[45] Ranjit Singh v. U T
of Chandigarh (1992) 3 SCC 659
[46] Blog news, Retrieved
from http://www.thescape.co.in/lnews/20110525/leadnews/109
[47] Pune Municipal Corpn.
v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki , AIR 2014 SC 982
[48] Article 12 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
[49] Prohibited under THE
KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING PROHIBITION ACT, 2011
[50] Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights
[51] Retrieved from http://www.moef.nic.in/assets/Rep_Committee_Trees_on_Private_land-27122012.pdf,
Last visited on 28/12/2016
[52] Retrieved from http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.AGRI.ZS,
Last visited on 28/12/2016
[53] See http://www.foresthistory.org/ASPNET/Publications/national_prosperity/sec12htm&ei=NSLa0Qgk&lc=en-IN&s=1&m=749&ts=1443596859&sig=APONPFnNsJPfzV6aS1eJeVT3H7pJM3zQ;
Goa government has drafted Private Forest Plan and sent it to Ministry of
Environment and Forest reports Times of India, 12-08-2015, Retrieved from
http://www.m.timesofindia.com/city/goa/ Draft-Private-Forest-Plan-sent-to-MoEF/articlesow/48444962.cms;
[54] It is possible when
government makes it that farmers shall own a minimum extent of land.
[55] The exact name of the
Rules and the copy of the same is not available with the author for
specifications.
[56] Retrieved from http://agricoop.nic.in/imagedefault/whatsnew/Agroforestry.pdf,
Last visited on 28/12/2016
[57] A prediction says
that there will be decline in crop yields up to 40% in the upcoming decades by
climate change, Meha Jain, posted Guest Blogger Retrieved from
http:www.voives.nationalgeographic.com/2013/08/19/Indian-farmer-cope-with-climate-change-and-falling-water-tables/
[58] Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India, 2012 (3) SCC 1
[59] Article 51 A (g) of the Constitution
[60]
http://agricoop.nic.in/imagedefault/policy/NPF2007ENG.pdf
[61] National Policy for
Farmers 2007 ; cited in Raj Kapila & Uma Kapila
(2007 )(Eds), Economic development in India, Vol.19, p.132, Academic Foundation , New
Delhi, Retrieved from
http://www.landcoalition.org/sites/default/files/documents/resources/land-rights-are-human-rights.pdf
[62] PTI report, Retrieved from http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-08-30/news/41618996_1_gdp-foodgrains-allied-sectors; Blog
post retrieved from https://www.change.org/p/ensure-a-stronger-law-in-parliament-to-save-our-agricultural-lands-farminindia; It was 51.81 % during 1950-51. See, http://statisticstimes.com/economy/sectorwise-gdp-contribution-of-india.php; India Economic Survey reports that agriculture contributed
17.4% to GDP in the year 2015-16 as compared to 18.3% in 2013-14. See https://home.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2016/04/KPMG-Flash-News-India-Economic-Survey-2015-16–Key-Highlights-3.pdf visited on 30/12/2016
[63] National Crime
Reports Bureau, ADSI, Report Annual-2012, Government of India, page 242, table
2.11
[65]
Social Development Foundation has started Land Literacy campaign in different
parts of Uttar Pradesh by getting into basic of land rights, land mapping and Training.
See Supra Foot Note 61
[66] Vidya Bhushan Rawat
& D.Leena (Eds) (2010), Land Rights are human rights, Delhi, Social
Development Foundation, p.18
No comments:
Post a Comment