Abstract:
Land acquisition for infrastructure development is a global necessity for urbanization, but it is plagued by long-standing challenges such as inadequate compensation, legal conflicts, corruption, and social unrest. Land purchase by states has always been a contentious issue. Millions of acres that have been expropriated, after 1947 have been displaced or adversely affected. Over more than 70 years of independence, much land, a lot of it agricultural land, has been acquired for urbanization, industrialization, and infrastructure development. Land acquisition and its related dispossessions, such as market valuation, compensation, and considerations of public purpose, are evident in contestations that took national cases like Singur, Nandigram, Narmada Bachao Andolan, and Bhata Parsol. These conflicts led to new legislative law, and repeal in the 2013 Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (LARR) Act, aimed at benefiting various stakeholders including the state, private sector, and landowners. However, the states diluted the law and started to experiment with alternatives. One of the alternatives that are embedded within the LARR is the negotiated model. This research implements a distinct method, beginning with an in-depth review of land acquisition laws and practices globally and in India. The study focuses on the Kashi Vishwanath Temple Corridor project and emphasizes the importance of on-site surveys and interviews in understanding the complexities of land acquisition. The research aims to assess the negotiated models of state land assembly within the framework of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) by assessing data collected via surveys, interviews, and document analysis. The research tends to investigate the fairness and transparency of negotiated land acquisition approaches through the lens of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC), with the Kashi Vishwanath Temple Corridor project as a case study. By evaluating the implementation of the negotiated land purchase model in this specific case, intend to gain a better understanding through the lens of FPIC principles and how well they are incorporated. The results and recommendations show despite their widespread use, negotiated models frequently fall short of their objective. This emphasizes the need for refinement and improvement to better fit with the goals of fairness, transparency, stakeholder consultation, and information dissemination.
Keywords: Land acquisition, fair compensation, challenges, Free Prior Informed Consent
