Colonial Land Acquisition Act 1894

[Neo]

Colonial Land Acquisition Act 1894

DR ZAFAR ALTAF

ARTICLE (December 12 2009): The Land Acquisition Act 1894 was a tyrannical act meant to keep the feudal and the land owners in their place, for there was no way that anyone from the land asset owners could take on the colonial government. The feudal, the waderas and the Nawabs of Dacca (now Dhaka) were the creations of the colonial system and the management of the agrarian system was dependent on very significant institutional arrangements.

The only time that an East India company official was taken to task was when Warren Hastings was taken to the House of Commons by Edmund Burke and the trial was conducted there. That is a different story and will be narrated at some other time. The Land Acquisition Act was simple and explained the character of the people of the times.

Having given land to the waderas and the feudals in return for some considerations, they were able to create a sizeable amount of people who would serve the British government's interests. Primarily, what that meant was that the British were able to create a local population that was dependent on them, for not only their survival, but also the survival of the colonial empire.

In return for land, these feudal and waderas were to provide horses and foot soldiers in a predetermined manner. The frontier tribes they were able to subjugate by virtue of the handouts that were consistently provided to them.

The social independence was so organised that the beneficiaries could not oppose the central government or their representatives. The land acquisition act was one such 'legal' arrangement for putting people in place. It was an instrument of oppression and an instrument that the independent government should have done away with. The act is an arbitrary one, given legality by the colonial masters.

How did this come about? It maybe necessary to rewrite the commentary of this act to make the policymakers realise, as an example, that the various governing acts have been perverted by interpretations, whereas the imperial government thought it right to do whatever they wanted to do, to perpetuate their rule, it was inconsistent with the liberty and independence that had been sought by the people of the sub-continent.

That Pakistani leadership never had the sanity to look at these laws and to strike down those laws, that were inconsistent with the governance and the rights of the local people. Rather, these laws were used by greedy individuals for their own purposes and the law was made subservient to personal greed and settlement of personal vendetta[s] on the one hand and on the other, to create a group of people that would be personally loyal to the godfathers that gave them the opportunity to have cheap assets.

That always continues when a non-democratic government is in power and or imposes itself on the country without due process of law. The preamble of the statute under discussion states that the land has to be needed for public purposes, and for determining the amount of compensation. The only objective given is that the land is to be for public purposes.

To make the laws, as they deemed fit, the lawmakers of the time did not bother to give a definition of public purpose. It is stated in the definitions section-3 sub clause [f] and I quote 'the expression public purpose includes the provisions of village-sites in districts in which the Provincial government shall have declared, by notification in the official gazette, that it is customary for the government to make such notifications'.

Since I found the definition inadequate, I searched for any other place that included anything that might throw light on the land acquisition act and the definition of 'Public purpose'. In the Punjab Land Acquisition rules of 1983 I found at rule 3 '...Acquiring agency will give full justification for the 'public purpose' involved and the minimum area required by it, with full details of other areas owned by in that locality.'

Section 4 goes on to say that the District Collector will consider the public purpose involved...' the representatives of the public were supposed to provide the law with necessary safeguards. This was never done and the word 'consideration' by the collector does not say that this has to be done critically. It is a passive rule to subvert the poor person whose land is being acquired. So what happens between the agencies that belong to the government and how are these rules implemented under the broad aegis of the Act.

The law is inconsistent with a number of aspects of a nation's life and the constitution provides for the liberty and the safeguards that are needed. It was in Former East Pakistan that one felt the full force of the subversive activities of the government departments.

It was at Pabna [where I was posted] that one received the land acquisition by the East Pakistan Wapda for a house-cum-office of the Chief Engineer and the total land required was 40 kanals, or 5 acres, next to the river Ganges and it had to be out of the flood zone. It so happened that the land asked for was valuable and the only piece of land that was free of floods, right on the banks. The request was denied.

Yahya Khan was then the President and the then Chairman EPWAPDA complained that came as a starred Governor's question, indicating that a 'non-development minded Punjabi officer had not allowed vital work to take place'. When the position was explained to the Governor [Admiral Ahsan], he sorted matters out. This is how the Land Acquisition Act worked and this is how the colonial heritage has been furthered, not removed, by the powers that be.

The numbers of such numbing actions are so plentiful that it renders the mind a bit weak for us Pakistanis. The other is the amount of compensation that is to be paid. This is done in a manner that it is the modest cost. The last twelve months average cost is calculated for the transactions in that area and then compensation paid on that basis. We know that the price of land, as of most things, is manipulated so that the duties are not excessive.

The land that belongs to the farmer or the poor person is acquired at peanuts and the manner of physical approval is such that there is nothing that can be done to delay these matters. The land can also be acquired for companies? Why is the corporate sector so fancied and safeguards for the land holders not available? Why has the market for land not been allowed to develop and why should we pamper the corporate sector?

Give me one instance when the lands of the poor have not been acquired and in lieu thereof, the lands of the rich have been acquired? The only time this happened was when the 7 marla scheme was announced by Shaheed ZAB and after him this programme was again modified. Why? It has led to the speculative purchase of land and to activities for inside information to be used against the country and the nation.

Revisit the Land Acquisition for Tarbella dam, for Islamabad and see how the country has been managed and to what extent the owners compensated for derelict land, if they happen to have bought the lands at throw-away prices and then sold it to government at exorbitant prices. Visit Ghazi Barotha and see the work of the then-chairman Wapda for the land acquired and the work of the patwari. Also check why the compensation for Tarbella is still outstanding.

Why cannot the law be eliminated and made to go to history? It won't, because it serves the purpose of the rich and the mighty. Should land be given to the corporate sector and should a company be allowed to have the rich pickings at the expense of the poor. Worry about the times, when the rural people will give up the current apathy and take the country's policymakers for what they have done to them.

Consider the builders of this nation and the users of this nation, not the winners and losers. Build into this, the faces that have used this country and se how it looks. Looking at physiognomy and regionalism for the beneficiaries may indicate what the elite have done to this country. Is there any doubt, after the massive evidence that has been coming out against the corporate sectors and their misdemeanors?

Who will visit the draconian laws that the British have left for us and who will strike down such laws as we have made that are against the essence of jurisprudence? Who will move for better clarity of the laws, rather than making them more draconian to serve their own purposes? Remember when one does something against the grain and against decency, the doer is generally the one that is first snared into his own doings. Why chop your own self?