| articles> |
FARMER’S VICTORY AGAINST LAND ACQUISITION FOR SEZ
|
| The Supreme Court’s decision not to extend the deadline for land acquisition for the Mumbai SEZ is a victory for Maharashtra’s farmers. |
A farmer comes to participate in the September 2008 referendum on land acquisition for the SEZ. |
| IT is not often that farmers score a victory over someone who was once billed as the world’s wealthiest man. But that is exactly what happened when the Supreme Court refused to extend the deadline for land acquisition for Reliance Industries chairman Mukesh Ambani’s Mumbai Special Economic Zone (SEZ). |
| The ruling makes it almost impossible for the promoters to continue with their current plans. “The verdict has shown that a farmer can fight a big corporate house. It has set a good precedent,” said the Maha Mumbai Shetkari Sangharsh Samiti. Ulka Mahajan, one of the Samiti’s leaders, called it a “major and historic victory for the farmers”. |
| THE MOVEMENT : |
| The resistance began four years ago when thousands of land acquisition notices were sent out to small and medium farmers, who form the majority of the agriculturists in Raigad district. The reaction was immediate. Villages banded together to form Vishesh Arthik Shetra Hatao Sangharsh Samitis (action committees against the SEZ). “They thought they could just come here and get the poor farmers to accept their offers of money, but it did not turn out like that,” said Ulka Mahajan. |
| But the promoters found an ally in the State government, which in 2007 applied Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Under this, the state could purchase land from farmers for SEZs. |
| The SEZ would have affected 45 villages in Raigad district. The company initially offered Rs.25 lakh a hectare for productive land and Rs.12.5 lakh a hectare for “wasteland” plots. It promised to create 25 lakh jobs in over 10 years and improve infrastructure and health and education facilities. But the farmers of Pen, Uran and Panvel taluks were not interested. With tension running high, the State government held a referendum on the project on September 21, 2008. It was a first-of-its-kind voting exercise in the country, and 6,000 landowners from 22 villages participated in it. Its outcome was never made public, but the large turnout implied solidarity among the farmers against the project. |
| One possible reason for the failure of the land acquisition process was a lack of understanding of what the farmers wanted as well as the mistaken decision to try and acquire cultivable land. The promoters thought that “throwing money around” would win them the battle, pointed out activists associated with the fight. |
| “The promoters identified some young men from the villages and employed them as agents to try and get the land. Of course, this did not work.” She noted that the attitude of the promoters was a big mistake. “Ask any farmer and he will tell you that just because farming is not a profitable activity, it does not mean farmers want to give it up. The idea is to improve farming. Not to cement fields over.” |
| When the SEZ plans were put into action, 25 villages in the Hetawane command area also received land acquisition notices. This was illegal since SEZ rules state that land in a command area or irrigated land cannot be used for an SEZ. In a bid to overcome this, the Irrigation Department altered the water allocation of the Hetawane dam last year so that the water would first go for drinking purposes, then for industry, and lastly for agriculture. For farmers who had given up their land for the canals, this was the ultimate blow. |
The Supreme Court order goes beyond an obvious victory for the Raigad farmers. Activists say they hope it will be an eye-opener for similar struggles all over the country. Ulka Mahajan said: “Questions need to be asked before the government just sides with corporate interests. Farmers need to be consulted before acquisition notices are sent. There is an urgent need for long-term, large-scale planning that sees to livelihoods, land rights and food security, and does not impose decisions on people just because they are poor.”
Courtesy: -LYLA BAVADAM -Vol:26 Iss:13-flonnet.com |
