Mr. Nirmalkumar Mohandas, BA.BL (Hons.) and He is Practicing Advocate at High Court of Madras.
Our guest is a vibrant lawyer who has concerns about social issues which is evident from his opinions expressed through his articles and interviews in media. Mr. Nirmalkumar is always a treasure to SOEL, being participated and won in nearly 7 national moots and 2 international moots and also a person who have great concern towards the society which is pertinent from his services.
A law or an act enacted has both pros and cons, one half celebrates the pros and the other half complains on the cons. The sphere consisting of the two halves is absolutely a legal practioner. And YES! Today’s discussion on the LAND ACQUISITION RESETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION BILL 2015 with an eminent advocate has opened to new ways of approaching the bill. Our guest supports the various features of the LARR Bill in comparison with the Land Acquisition Act 2013, by aiding his statement with the principle of “compromising the individual interest for achieving public interest”. India is marching towards the goal of developed nation, were rural development and infrastructure plays an important role, for achieving its target such land acquisition changes should be welcomed, was his point.
The elimination of consent clause for the land to be acquired for the purpose of defense, rural infrastructure, affordable housing, industrial corridors, social infrastructure has to be held good for the purpose as the government cannot always get the 70% of consent from the farmer’s family, the land though being compensated monetarily, there exist a emotional thread between the two. At the same time the compensation of four times the rate of the land and a job for a member of the farm labor’s family is really appreciable. This bill recognizes and remedies the problem not only of the land owners but also the laborers’ who wholly depend on the land. This specific feature of the bill made our guest to leap towards it. He also adds that such hike of opposition is not necessary for the bill as nearly 80% of the land being acquired by various other acts for the purpose of mines, railways and highways etc.
Moving to the LARR Authority to be established by the bill, being a professional who is very well aware of the difficulties in settling the pending cases before the court and the importance of alternative remedy, he welcomes the idea of a separate dispute settlement authority to be established for the purpose. It would help in speedy disposal of cases, and such sensitive issues can only be judged by the experts in that particular field.
On the whole the intention or the object of the bill is to only to achieve development through industrialization for the benefit of the public at large, which is evident from the expansion of the definitions of terms like private companies to private entities, however it has been misrepresented by the opposite parties and also by few professionals (who has the duty not to deceive the public) saddens Mr. Nirmal. Not being to the side of any political party, he also points out that the ruling party has also committed social and political blunder that it should have not acted arbitrary in passing the bill and should have also tried its best to convince the other political parties who stayed obstinate to the bill, secondly for a land acquisition bill to be passed in a country which foster agriculture, proper awareness about the features of the bill should have been made. The bill of national concern should have not been passed through voice vote in such agitating situation and basically Mr. Nirmal is against the bill to be passed by voice vote, of his opinion that the method is against democracy.
Interviewed by,
A.SRI RAMYA. Vth Year BA.BL(Hons), SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE IN LAW, Chennai.