The inter-ministerial differences on the land bill in the cabinet meeting recently has portrayed a pro-market versus socialist divide in the government. The urban development ministry, which is headed by Kamal Nath, in particular has argued in the favour of a bill that will not constrain industry by binding it to social obligations as part of acquiring land for industrial projects.
One comment by the urban development ministry on the land bill makes the point clear by arguing that social impact assessment should not be made mandatory on industrial projects, as it renders land acquisition of varying sizes 'very complicated, cumbersome and time consuming'. The ministry of rural development countered this argument, saying that if the area of land sought to be acquired is small in size then the social impact assessment will be commensurately shorter to complete. The urban development ministry has further argued that social impact should only be invoked in urban areas for projects requiring land greater than 10 acres, this has also not been accepted by the rural development ministry.
Taking a pro-industry stand further, the urban development ministry has said that the rehabilitation and resettlement of the project-affected people should not be tied to the land acquisition process. However, in urban areas the urban development ministry wants this process to take place if commercial, institutional and industrial establishments in urban areas are acquired.
The urban development ministry feels that the compensation proposed in the bill is too high, and when urban bodies, like the Delhi Development Authority, acquire land to build houses for the poor, the whole project is rendered non-feasible.
In respect to the compensation awarded to landless labourers, urban development ministry has said that farm labourers should not be considered for compensation and resettlement and rehabilitation. It further says that in urban areas, it has suggested that people who lose livelihood should not be considered for compensation as the rate of migration to urban areas is very high and distinguishing genuine from bogus claims will be very difficult. Both comments have been countered by the rural development ministry.