Public‐private discord in the land acquisition law: Insights from Rajarhat in India

Abstract

The Indian state is empowered to acquire land on behalf of private companies by virtue of ‘eminent domain’ outlined in the Land Acquisition Act 1894. Several amendments to the 1894 Land Acquisition Act have broadened the purview of the ‘public purpose’ clause and have facilitated more state intervention in land acquisition on behalf of private capital. Rather than questioning the legitimacy of the prevailing practice of state intervention to resolve the glitches of access to land by private corporations, the New Act of 2013 has expanded the ambit of ‘public purpose’ to include public‐private‐partnership projects. This paper seeks to look into the political economy of why the neoliberal state must continue to acquire land on behalf of the capitalists in the liberalized economy. This paper also attempts to bring out the implications of divergent livelihood outcome under state acquisition and direct corporate land purchase for the land acquisition framework in India through the case study of Rajarhat New Town in West Bengal.

Experiences of private firms in delivering land services in peri-urban areas in Tanzania

“…Despite improvements and successes in providing planned and serviced land, public-private partnership arrangements raise a myriad of challenges including problems of profit maximization by the private sector, lack of common interests between the public and the private sector, as well as inadequate awareness and experience of local communities (Otiso 2003;Magigi 2013;Kasala and Burra 2016;Kalabamu and Lyamuya 2017;Mallik 2018). Regardless of the organizational and institutional challenges faced by private sector participation in the land sector, the partnership phenomenon has been spreading globally (UN 2008).…”

The dispossession regime of India's ultra mega power projects (UMPPs): case of a captive coal based UMPP in Jharkhand

“…The justifications for the forceful taking of the land have come from broadly defined public interests. With the onset of privatization followed by the neoliberal era, a significant proportion of the broadly defined public interests have come to mean the interests of private entities, where public-private partnership modalities have dominated the infrastructure, industrial and resource extraction sectors (Bedi 2013;Gogoi 2018;Mallik 2018). As the definition of public purpose has expanded and become intertwined with private interests, there has been a notable escalation in popular resistance against dispossession (Sampat 2013).…”