The following article is authored by Trisha Beria, a Fourth Year student of Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar
INTRODUCTION
Northeast India has witnessed a longstanding tussle between the state and the people over land Rights. This resurfaced when the state government of Assam signed Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with the Tata Group and the Hyatt Hotel Corporation to construct three luxury hotels in Kaziranga National Park and Tiger Reserve (KNPTR). To facilitate these projects, the Assam Tourism Department has initiated the acquisition of farmland in the area, triggering widespread protests across the region.
This article examines how the current reports of acquisition deviate from the legal procedure established under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“the LARR Act”) and pose a significant threat to farmers’ constitutionally guaranteed rights to land and livelihood.
RIGHT TO LAND AND LIVELIHOOD IN INDIA
The Right to Land and Livelihood are intrinsically linked to farmers and both of these rights are constitutionally protected in India. In Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that ‘Right to Livelihood’ is a part of ‘Right to Life’ under Article 21 of the Constitution. Further, Article 300A provides that no person shall be deprived of his property expect by the authority of Law. While not a fundamental right, Article 300A confers a constitutional right to property.
In a recent judgment by the Supreme Court, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Aravind Kumar identified seven sub-Rights that form a part of Article 300A. These include the Right to Notice, the Right to be heard, the Right to a reasoned decision, the duty to acquire only for public purpose, the Right to restitution or fair compensation, the Right to an efficient and expeditious process and the Right to conclusion. The LARR Act incorporates the above-mentioned sub-Rights, mandating adherence to them.
The Apex court has further recognized the ‘Right to Land and Livelihood’ in the landmark judgment of Kedar Nath Yadav v. State of West Bengal & Others. In this case, the court held that the acquisition of farmers’ land for a car manufacturing unit did not constitute “public purpose” and directed the company to return the land to the farmers along with compensation.
Despite the robust legal framework and numerous precedents, illegal land acquisitions remain a pervasive issue in India, resulting in conflicts. According to Land Conflict Watch, there are currently 846 ongoing conflicts affecting around 10,583,758 people, in the country. These figures raise serious questions about the effectiveness of current laws.
VIOLATION OF THE LARR ACT
Land acquisition by the state is based upon the doctrine of eminent domain. This doctrine provides state with the power to acquire an individual’s property for the purpose of development. To ensure that this power is not arbitrarily used by the government the LARR act was enacted. This act lays down the procedure for acquisition of land by the state. One of the notable features of this act is the Social Impact Assessment (SIA). Under Section 4 of the Act, the government must conduct an SIA prior to the acquisition. This assessment requires them to determine whether the acquisition serves a public purpose, to estimate the number of affected families, impact of the project on the livelihood of affected families, to consider alternative sites for the project, etc. Further, Section 5 of the Act requires a public hearing to be held at the affected areas in order to record the views of the affected families in the SIA report.
To illustrate the afforementioned point better, according to a report by Down to Earth, the government has installed pillars on 30 acres of land that farmer Lokhu Gowola and other local farmers have been collectively farming for decades. The report notes that Lokhu Gowola, an indigenous farmer, received a notice from the Circle Officer of the Bokakhat sub division stating that the land belonged to the Assam Tourism Development Corporation (ATDC). Subsequently, Gowola’s house on that land was demolished.
In the present scenario, the state government has failed to comply with section 4 and 5 of the Act. Moreover, the answer whether luxury hotels qualify as a “public purpose” under the Act, Section 3 of the Act must be referred to. Section 3 defines “public purpose” as activities specified under Section 2(1) of the Act and the same explicitly excludes private hotels, thereby rendering the acquisition illegal.
It is noteworthy that even if the government’s declaration of the land as khas land and its claim with regards to the ownership is considered to be true, such arguments fall short as the definition of “affected families” under Section 3 of the Act also includes families that do not own the land but are agricultural labourers or anyone who may be working in the affected area for three years prior to the acquisition of the land, whose primary source of livelihood stand affected by the acquisition of land. Therefore, families like Gowola’s, who have been farming the land and paying land revenue for generations, are covered under the Act’s protections.
The Greater Kaziranga Land and Human Rights Committee (GKLHRC), an organization comprising of more than 100 villages in and around Kaziranga, has submitted multiple memorandums to the government demanding land Rights of evicted farmers, but the same has not yield any relief. The state’s commitment towards suppressing dissent and infringement of human Rights was further visible when the members of the GKLHRC, Saurav Patrigi, Subham, Ritupan Pegu, and Manohar Pegu were detained by the Bokakhat Police and an FIR was filed against them.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
The LARR Act brought in a much-needed reform to the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 by broadening its scope. The new Act expanded the definition of the terms “persons interested” and “affected families” to include those dependent on the acquired land for their livelihoods, even without actual ownership.
However, the present scenario draws a rather grim picture. An article published in Mongabay highlights that these projects, if allowed, would threaten the livelihoods of approximately 1500 tea workers. These farmers, many of whom have lived and worked in the region for over 200 years, are being denied the right to their land and livelihood. Instead of recognizing their historical connection to the land, ownership is being transferred to corporate entities, further marginalizing these communities.
This is not an isolated incident. In the recent years we have seen a gradual increase in the corporatization of land across India. This corporatization disproportionately affects the indigenous populations, especially in Northeast India. Alongside ecological degradation, such projects cause displacement, loss of livelihood, poverty and sever ancestral connections to land. It is pertinent to mention here that such actions by the government also contravene international standards, such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Article 10 of the Declaration explicitly prohibits the forcible removal of Indigenous peoples from their lands without free, prior, and informed consent, as well as just compensation and the option to return.
KNPTR, being a UNESCO world heritage site, has also drawn concern from the Heritage Alert Committee of the Indian Chapter of the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS India). ICOMOS India has sought clarification on several aspects of the luxury hotel construction project, questioning whether it aligns with the principles laid down by UNESCO for such heritage sites. The UNESCO Charter for cultural tourism lays down various principles for heritage sites and non-adherence to these principles might lead to losing of the ‘world heritage site’ status. Principle 4 of the charter clearly provides that Host communities and Indigenous peoples must be involved in planning for conservation and tourism. Principle 4.1 specifically emphasizes that the traditional Rights of indigenous peoples over their own land must be respected.
The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has taken suo motu cognizance of the matter and has issued a notice to four Union and state departments, seeking their response regarding potential violations of Environmental laws. However, the systemic disregard for the rights of indigenous farmers has largely been overlooked.
This ongoing conflict raises critical questions about the adequacy of the current legal framework in upholding the constitutional rights of indigenous communities, particularly in the politically sensitive region of Northeast India. It reveals systemic gaps in transparency, accountability, and procedural compliance in land acquisitions by the state, necessitating a more proactive and inclusive approach to address these issues. This can be achieved by keeping a constant check on acquisitions by the government, empowering organizations like the GKLHRC to report deviations, and establishing specialized courts to handle land conflicts. Amidst the blatant abuse of power by the state authorities, it becomes essential that the judiciary fulfills its role as the guardian of constitutional rights and ensures adherence to legal and procedural mandates. The longstanding human and ecological heritage of Kaziranga must be protected by balancing development, environmental conservation and the rights of indigenous farmers.
*