In line with the efforts to find a solution to the contentious issue, BJP MP SS Ahluwalia, who was heading the Joint Parliamentary Committee, may suggest that the amendments brought by the Narendra Modi government may be put in the Concurrent List of the 7th schedule of the Constitution.
“This would enable and empower the state legislatures to bring their own land law by suitably amending the central law as per the needs of the state,” said sources, close to <g data-gr-id="35">government</g>.
According to constitutional provisions, states can pass such laws, which may have some provisions repugnant to central law, with the approval of the President.
According to a source, there would be “no need to bring the matter for <g data-gr-id="30">vote</g> to Parliament” for placing it in the Concurrent List. “The general procedure is that a report is submitted to the House, which becomes <g data-gr-id="29">property</g> of the House, which in turn passes it to the government for further action,” added the source.
In this case, the BJP-led governments in the states would have the freedom to do away with contentious consent clause. Whereas, the Congress-led state governments, which have taken a stringent stand on this, will be left with their hands tied. However, several regional parties especially the Biju Janata Dal (BJD) in Orissa would go for it as they were losing out on <g data-gr-id="33">industrial</g> partnership on account of non-acquisition of land. Whereas, the stand taken by regional parties including Samajwadi Party in Uttar Pradesh, Trinamool Congress in West Bengal, AIADMK in Tamil Nadu and others, will have to be seen.
Ahluwalia was expected to be out with his report on August 3. The source added, “If the Parliament is not in agreement with the new Land Bill, then the proposed changes would be introduced in the Concurrent List. This will enable the state government to take the decision to implement or not to implement the new proposed law. If even one of the Congress state governments implements the new law, then their entire argument would collapse.”