Oppn wants govt to furnish details of acquired land
Having forced the Narendra Modi government to refer the contentious Land Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee, the Opposition has now demanded that it come out with details of acquisitions made for various projects since promulgation of the Land Ordinance for the first time in December last year.
Failing to convert the Land Acquisition Bill into an Act due to the number crunch in Rajya Sabha, government had recently re-promulgated the land ordinance for the third time even as the JPC deliberated on the contentious legislation at length for the first time on May 29.
The re-promulgation came in for sharp criticism from the opposition which termed it as an "insult" to Parliament as JPC had been constituted to go into the vexed bill.
The government had, however, insisted that the measure was necessary for acquisition of land for crucial projects pending enactment of a new law, replacing the 2013 Act passed when UPA was in power. While defending its action, <g data-gr-id="30">government</g> had noted some state governments had also expressed their reservations to the 2013 law as acquiring land under it was difficult.
Latching on to the government's claim that acquiring land was a difficult task without the amendments brought by it, B Mahtab of BJD has sought details of the land acquired since the ordinance was first issued in December 2014, sources close to the development said.
In a bid to counter the government's claim that amendments were necessary to set up vital projects related to national security, Congress MP Jairam Ramesh has asked for details of such security projects cleared by the Modi dispensation since the promulgation of the ordinance for the first time.
The first meeting of the JPC saw a number of Opposition members raising questions over the rationale behind the government changing crucial provisions of the 2013 law. Expressing dissatisfaction over the government's arguments in favour of the new bill, the members demanded a "composite" inter-ministerial reply on the issue.