In recent days, the central and the state governments have sharply accelerated their programmes of acquiring lands from the public for a "public purpose" and giving it to businesses. The creation of SEZs, acquisition of land for NICE infrastructure corridor, acquisition of land for power plants all over the country are all examples. Some recent local examples are acquisition of shops in Makkaji Chowk and giving them to a developer for building a shopping complex and acquisition of farm land for building Infosys campus.
In an important decision given last month on 7-3-2011, the Supreme Court has cast serious doubts on such land acquisitions which are all based on the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Some salient features of the Supreme Court order are:
1. Land Acquisition Act is a relic from 1894 when the British ruled India. It is not consisitent with the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution. Article 13 of the Constitution mandates that any pre-constitutional law cannot remove or abridge fundamental rights. The Court said that these issues must be borne in mind "when little Indians lose their small property in the name of mindless acquisition at the instance of the State".
2. The Court also said that any attempt by the State to acquire land to benefit a particular group of people at the cost of the interest of a large section of people especially the common people defeats the very concept of "public purpose".
3. The Court said that courts should not remain as passive umpires, but take an active role in land acquisition cases. It could mean that courts should quash acquisition orders which do not have a genuine public purpose.
4. The Court raised the question whether the government can acquire fertile agricultural land when unfertile banjar lands are available. But, surprisingly, it did not answer this question. This question is of relevance to Mysore in both the Infosys case and the Chamalapura thermal power station case.
It appears that SEZs, NICE project, Makkaji Chowk and Infosys campus, none of them meet the test of "public purpose" elucidated by the Supreme Court in its recent order.