Govt apathy chipping away at tribal rights

THE HANS INDIA |    Aug 09,2017 , 02:31 AM IST

Despite several enabling legislations that provide Adivasis self-autonomy, prohibit transfer of lands to non-tribals and also recognise their forest land rights, various organs of successive State governments initiated a number of measures that decisively undermine the initiatives of nodal agency – Tribal Welfare Department. These acts of sabotage are essentially related to non-implementation of the Land Transfer Regulations 1 of 70, the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996, and the Forest Rights Recognition Act 2006.

To undo historic injustice to adivasis, the Indian state enacted the Forest Rights Recognition Act, 2006 (FRA), which recognises and vests diverse pre-existing rights over forest land. But it is made ineffectual by grant of Community Forest Rights (CFR)  to Vana Samrakshana Samithis (VSSs), instead of Gram Sabhas, despite them being declared illegal by the Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs.

Girijan Co-Operative Corporation (GCC) exercises monopoly over non-timber forest products (NTFPs). Governments continue to refuse to recognise habitat rights of the Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups and are responsible for non-conversion of forest/unsurveyed villages into revenue villages etc. 

The FRA recognises the rights of adivasis over the non-timber forests products including bamboo. No doubt, the AP government has laid more emphasis on individual forest land rights, but ignores community rights and community forest resources rights of adivasis. According to a study, the minimum available potential for Community Forest Resources in AP is estimated to be 35.01 lakhs acre.

The Gram Sabha has legal jurisdiction over this chunk of forest lands for its management and protection. However, the government distributed forest land pattas to 85,678 individuals over 2 lakh acres. In fact ensuring the rights of adivasis over the NTFP and provision for adequate market interventions for all NTFP products is the need of the hour. Such a step would help increase employment and income generation at local levels to poverty-stricken adivasis. 

The historical and legal perspective is that land in the Scheduled Area belongs to the tribals. Until and unless the contrary is proved, the land in occupation by non-tribals shall be deemed to have come through a transfer from tribals as per the Land Transfer Regulations (LTRs) (Amended) 1 of 1970. Although LTRs 1 of 1970 have been in force, its implementation has been rather poor. Survey and Settlement Department has granted settlement pattas in favour of non-tribals in violations of LTRs.

Such lands have not been restored to the tribals even by the officials empowered to do so. Politics and external drivers have undermined the objective of Fifth Schedule of the Constitution, which protects land rights of tribals. Yet another threat is intrusion of non-tribals into the Scheduled Areas, which continues unchecked, changing the very character of the Scheduled Areas. 

Another major concern is large-scale displacement of tribals by projects like Polavaram and their settlement in other tribal areas, which often result in inter-tribal conflicts. This can be avoided by converting non-Scheduled Areas into Scheduled Areas for rehabilitation and resettlement purposes. The eminent domain based laws recognise individual ownership, but ignore community rights over common resources which are basic to their livelihood.

The tribals cannot claim ownership on community resources even if they have lived on them for centuries before the colonial laws were enacted, and cannot seek legal compensation on par with private lands. It is the major causation for unrest among the project-affected tribals. Its result is impoverishment and marginalisation of project-displaced tribals.

Political parties are disinterested in ensuring the realisation of dreams of adivasis for their self-governance as envisaged under the Panchayats Extension to Scheduled Areas (PESA) Act 1996.  The self-determination is a recognised right of indigenous peoples  as well as their rights over resources. The Indigenous Peoples Day being observed on August 9 is intended to remind the state of its obligations in implementing special constitutional provisions for the overall uplift of the tribals.

By Dr Palla Trinadha Rao

http://www.thehansindia.com/posts/index/News-Analysis/2017-08-09/Govt-apathy-chipping-away-at-tribal-rights-/317711

A big relief : A Supreme Court judgement serves as a deterrent to the indiscriminate land grab

Written by editor// July 9, 2012//National News//3 Comments

BY LESLIE ST. ANNE

Even as Goans lament and watch helplessly as the once verdant and fertile land of their ancestors, is sullied, raped and disfigured by huge housing complexes, innumerable hotels, specialty hospitals and white-elephant government projects put-up by unscrupulous builders from Delhi, Mumbai and Goa, ably abetted by pliant local politicians, an effective weapon of control wielded by the Country’s Apex Court lies with the State’s highest bureaucrat – the Chief Secretary.

The stalling of implementation of the Regional Plan 2021 notwithstanding, a judgment by the Supreme Court in dismissal of a Civil Appeal filed against the State of Punjab arising out of a Special Leave Petition (Civil) CC No.19869/2010 should have served as a deterrent to the indiscriminate land grab and use of ‘community lands and water bodies for purpose of housing and other ostensible government and private development projects —- which in Goa could certainly encompass Communidade properties.

The two member bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Honorable Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Mishra, while disposing of the Civil Appeal No.1132/2011 @ SLP (C) No.3109/2011 filed by a local builder /developer against the Punjab Government, pointed out that ‘since time immemorial there have been common lands inhering in the village communities in India variously called ‘Gram Sabha Land’, Gram Panchayat Land (in many North Indian States) (sic), which were for centuries used for common benefit of villagers of the village for various purposes, for e.g. for their cattle to drink and bathe, for storing the harvested grain, for grazing ground, as a maidan for their children to play, threshing floor, carnivals, circuses, ramlila, cart stands, water-bodies, passages, cremation ground , graveyards etc..’

The Justices observed that ‘these lands stood vested through local laws in the State and were generally treated as inalienable in order that  their status as community land is preserved. There were no doubt exceptions to the rule which permitted the Gram Sabha/Panchayat to  lease out some of this land to landless laborers and members of Scheduled Castes/ Tribes. But this was done only in exceptional cases’.

Taking strong cognizance of the Appeal filed by one Jaspal Singh and others seeking to overturn an ‘impugned judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 21/5/2010’ which had upheld an earlier judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court pronounced on 10/02/2010, the Supreme Court Judges were blatantly blunt while arriving at their ruling. “What we have observed since Independence, is that in large parts of the country this common village land has been grabbed by unscrupulous persons, using muscle power, money power or political clout, and in many States now there is not an inch of such land left for the common use of the people of the village though it may exist on paper. People with power and pelf operating in villages all over India systematically encroached upon communal land and put them to uses totally inconsistent with its original character, for personal aggrandizement at the cost of the village community. This was done with active connivance of the State authorities and local powerful vested interests and goondas. This Appeal is a glaring example of this state of affairs,” the Apex Court observed.

The honorable SC justices were of a view that ‘the appellants were ‘neither the owner nor the tenants of the land in question –in this case  recorded as a pond –situated in village Rohar Jagir, Tehsil and District Punjab. They are in fact trespassers and unauthorized occupants (sic) and they appear to have filled the village pond and made constructions thereon.’

The chain of events that led to the Supreme Court ruling began with the Gram Panchayat Rohar Jagir, filing an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act 1961, to evict the respondents therein, Jaspal Singh and others who had ‘unauthorizedly’ occupied the aforesaid land. In its petition, the Gram Panchayat Rohar Jagir had alleged that ‘the land in question belonged to the Gram  Panchayat, Rohar, as is clear from land revenue records.’

However, ‘the respondents (appellants herein) had forcibly occupied the said land and begun making constructions thereon illegally. An application was consequently moved before the Deputy Commissioner informing him about the illegal acts of the respondents (appellants  herein) and stating that the aforesaid land is recorded in the revenue records as Gair Mumkin Toba – a village pond. The petition stated that the villagers have been using the same since drain water of the village falls into the pond and it is used by the cattle of the village for drinking and bathing. An FIR was also filed against the respondents but to no avail. It was alleged that the latter ‘have illegally raised constructions on  the said land and lower officials of the department and Gram Panchayat had colluded with them.’

In compiling their ruling, the two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, observed that surprisingly ‘instead of ordering the eviction of these unauthorized occupants, the Collector Patiala held that ‘it would not be in the public interest to dispossess them, and instead had directed the Gram Panchayat, Rohar to recover from the respondents (appellants herein) the cost of the land as per the Collector’s rates.’ ‘Thus, the Collector colluded in regularizing this illegality on the ground that the respondents (appellants herein) have spent huge money on constructing houses on the said land’, opined the learned Justices.

The SC Bench noted that in a further turn of events ‘some persons filed an Appeal before the Commissioner challenging the Order of the Patiala Collector on September 13, 2005. The Appeal was allowed on December 12, 2007. The Commissioner held that it was clear that the Gram Panchayat was colluding with these respondents as it had not even opposed the Order passed by the Collector in which directions were  issued to the Gram Panchayat to transfer the property to these persons nor filed an Appeal against the Collector’s Order.’

Evidence produced before the SC Bench showed that the Commissioner while disposing of that Appeal, had held that ‘the village pond has been used for the common purpose of the villagers and cannot be allowed to be encroached upon by any private respondents, whether Jagirdars or anybody else.’ Photographs submitted before the Commissioner showed that recent attempts had been made to encroach into  the village pond by filling it up with earth and making new constructions thereon. When the matter had gone to the officials for the removal of these illegal constructions, no action was taken for reasons best known to the authorities at that time. The Commissioner was of view that ‘regularizing such kind of illegal encroachment is not in the interest of the Gram Panchayat and that Kharsra No.369 (84-4) is part of the  village pond , and the respondents (appellants herein) illegally constructed their houses at the site without any jurisdiction and without even any resolution of the Gram Panchayat.’

Against this Order of the Commissioner, a Writ Petition was filed before the honorable Single Judge of the High Court. This Petition was dismissed by the honorable Single Judge vide a Judgment dated 10/2/2010. The dismissal was further upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court. The petitioners then went in Appeal before the two-member Bench of the Country’s Apex Court.

The Honorable Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sadhu Mishra, while dismissing the Appeal, were caustic in their ruling. They said, “We find no merit in this Appeal. The Appellants herein were trespassers who illegally encroached on to the Gram Panchayat land using muscle power/money power and in collusion with officials and even the Gram Panchayat. We are of opinion that such kind of blatant illegalities must not be condoned. Even if the appellants have built houses on the land in question they must be ordered to remove their constructions, and possession of the land in question must be handed back to the Gram Panchayat. Regularizing such illegalities must not be permitted because it is Gram Sabha land which must be kept for the common use of villagers of the village.”

While annulling a letter from the Government of Punjab ‘permitting regularization of possession of these unauthorized occupants’, the Supreme Court Bench opined that ‘such letters are wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. Such illegalities cannot be regularized and we  cannot allow the common interest of the villagers to suffer merely because the unauthorized occupation has subsisted for many years.’

Citing a case where the Supreme Court had ordered the restoration of a park after demolition of a shopping complex constructed at a cost of over Rs.100 crores, and another where the Apex Court had held that even where the law permits compounding of unsanctioned  constructions, such compounding should only be by way of an exception, Justices Kajtu and Mishra, opined that ‘this decision will apply with even greater force in cases of encroachment of common land. Ordinarily, compounding in such cases should only be allowed where the  land has been leased to landless laborers or members of Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes, or the land is actually being used for a public purpose of the village e.g. running a school for the villagers or a dispensary for them.’

The Supreme Court Bench was scathingly critical on the issuance of government orders by many States ‘permitting allotment of Gram Sabha  land to private persons and commercial enterprises on payment of some money’. All such Government Orders are illegal and should be ignored, the Apex Court opined.

Referring to an earlier Supreme Court judgment (AIR 2001 SC 3215) where it was held that ‘land recorded as a pond must not be allowed to  be allotted to anybody for construction of a house or any allied purpose’, Justices Kajtu and Mishra hailed the wisdom of the past generation. “Our ancestors were not fools. They knew that in certain years there may be droughts or water shortages for some other reason, and water  was also required for cattle to drink and bathe in etc. Hence they built a pond attached to every village, a tank attached to every temple. These were their traditional rain water harvesting methods, which served for thousands of years”, they said.

In dismissal of the Appeal of Jaspal Singh for want of merit, the honorable Supreme Court Bench rued the fact that ‘over the last few decades, most of the ponds in our Country have been filled with earth and built upon by greedy people thus destroying their original character. This has contributed to the water shortages in the country. Also, many ponds are auctioned off at throw away prices to  businessmen for fisheries in collusion with authorities/ Gram Panchayat officials and even this money collected from these so called  auctions are not used for the common benefit of the villagers but misappropriated by certain individuals. The time has come when such  malpractices must stop,’ the Court warned.

Finally in conclusion, the Supreme Court Bench directed “all State Governments in the Country to prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/ unauthorized occupants of Gram Sabha/ Gram Panchayat/ Poramboke/ Shamlat land and these must be restored to the Gram Sabha/ Gram Panchayat for common use of villagers of the village.”

For this purpose, the Chief Secretaries of all State Governments / Union Territories of India are directed to do the needful, taking the help of other senior officers of the Governments. The said scheme should provide for speedy eviction of such illegal occupant, after giving him a  show cause notice and a brief hearing. Long duration of such illegal occupation or huge expenditure in making constructions thereon or political connections must not be treated as a justification for condoning this illegal act or for regularizing the illegal possession,” the Supreme Court Order has specified. A copy of this Order has been sent to all Chief Secretaries with instructions to ensure strict and prompt compliance (sic) and reports to be sent to the Apex Court from time to time.

Granted that this Supreme Court Order is specific to a pond, but its emphasis must not be lost as it seeks to protect ‘community lands’ from abuse by land-grab sharks who wield muscle and money power. Given that Goa is unique in that a vast portion of its land comprising ponds, water bodies, verdant fields and hillocks belong to the Communidades (village communities)—which have in recent years been usurped, by draconian State Acts—this ruling should come as a welcome bludgeon for sincere local social activists striving to preserve Goa’s pristine eco-structure!UTS’

http://thevois.co.in/magazine/?p=5718

© 2012 UTS' Voice

‘Right to land’: Is the Centre serious?

November 28, 2012

The UPA government’s drafting of a “right to land” bill for the landless appears a followup to the agreement signed by rural development minister Jairam Ramesh with the Ekta Parishad Jan Satyagraha, 50,000 of whom marched from Gwalior to New Delhi in October. They called off their march for land to the landless only after Mr Ramesh promised the Centre would come out with a National Land Reform Policy for discussion with states in six months.

It is not clear if this will only be land for homesteads or a provision like the one-acre-per-family for cultivation that was done reasonably well in West Bengal. At first sight, the government’s proposal seems extremely positive, but the critical point is whether it is really serious about land reforms and not just employing another pre-election gimmick. Its record in implementing land reforms is appalling, to put it mildly. The government has failed to implement the Land Ceiling Act, the cornerstone of land reforms, which would have brought millions of hectares of land for distribution to the landless. The thousands of acres of land donated by rich people in the Bhoodan movement in the 1960s remains to be distributed.

Historical evidence indicates the government is not at all serious about distributing land to the landless. It is one of the largest owners of land in the country, though this is officially termed “community land”. Will it be ready to relinquish control over vast tracks of forest land and national parks? Else, it would mean giving land to the landless, who have little or no right over the land, produce etc. In short, it would simply be a red herring. Today, for the government, land mostly means real estate to be given to the highest bidder and to cronies and associates in the name of development.

It is one thing to talk of the “right to land”, but quite another matter to actually put this in practice. To start with, there would have to be a survey of who owns land in India, and also an accurate survey of the number of landless in the country, and what they would do with the land given to them. Mr Ramesh is reported to have estimated that 20 million rural families lacked even homestead land, and that two million acres of land would be required to deliver on this promise. Ekta leader P.V. Rajagopal, however, estimates that 200 million people are in need of land, as 50 per cent of dalits and tribals are landless. There are many issues that need to be thrashed out immediately if the government is serious about providing a “right to land” that the landless desperately need to earn a livelihood.

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/editorial/dc-comment/%E2%80%98right-land%E2%80%99-centre-serious-219

Call to empower communities to protect village commons

SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT

Thiruvananthapuram: Village communities will be better equipped to protect local resources than the government or panchayats, Director-General of the Administrative Staff College of India S.K. Rao has said.

Talking to The Hindu on the sidelines of a workshop organised by ASCI and the Institute of Management in Government, he said the concept of village commons was highly relevant in the context of the rising trend of land grab across the country. He said it was time to revive the old village-level community process of protecting common resources like trees, village grazing lands or water bodies.

“When you transfer the power for protection of village commons to political bodies like the government or panchayats, you lose that ability to control local situations. No measure should be taken unless 80 to 85 per cent of citizens directly vote in favour. That way you cannot take decisions without the larger consent,” he said.

Dr. Rao said the village community as a whole should be trusted. “In some villages, people are sharply polarised, but when it comes to local issues and when people see that there is some good in protecting village commons, people would not do things which would mean that the village loses a valuable resource like village tanks or grazing land.”

Highlighting the importance of localising the process for protection of village commons, he said, “do not say it is the responsibility of the State government. To them, it does not matter if one village common is lost if someone makes a profit out of it. They want political funding.”

Dr. Rao said: “In olden days, take for example a village tank, the boundaries are recognised, you cannot encroach upon it. The village community will be watching. It is time to revive the system.”

Asked about the institutional mechanism required for protection of village commons, he proposed the constitution of a non political trust for the purpose. The trust, he said, could comprise eminent citizens. There could also be a council of elders at the taluk level, he said.

“These things do not happen just by thinking of some smart solution like in physics. There should be a will for people to do something positive.” Dr. Rao said the community governance system in some North Eastern States such as Nagaland could be a good example.

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-kerala/article3664731.ece

Copyright © 2012, The Hindu

‘Encroachments in villages won’t be tolerated’ - Surjit Singh Rakhra, Rural Development and Panchayat Minister, Punjab

Surjit Singh Rakhra wants to be remembered as Rural Development and Panchayat Minister who made earnest efforts to bridge the rural-urban divide. In an interview with Jangveer Singh, he talked of the need for region-specific schemes.

What are your first impressions on taking over as Rural Development and Panchayat Minister?

My first thoughts were to take steps to end factional fighting in panchayats, which spokes the development process. I am aware of the migration from villages to urban areas and the lack of facilities in villages due to which even government servants are reluctant to serve there. Unemployment in rural areas remains a bane.

How do you propose to change this state of affairs?

We are fine-tuning the ‘e-panchayat’ initiative under which the functioning of panchayats will become transparent. I want to make people proud of their villages by ensuring they have their own portal where apart from information on the village, expenditure of development funds will also be recorded. This will remove bad blood among different factions on the money spent on development works. Simultaneously, the PURA (Provisioning of Urban Amenities in Rural Areas) is being implemented under which villages with a population of 25,000 - 40,000 will be provided urban facilities. Skill development centres will also be developed in rural areas under this scheme.

What else is being done to make the department functioning more efficient?

Training is being given by chartered accountants to sarpanches, panches and officials to help them prepare accounts as per the Comptroller and Auditor-General (CAG) guidelines. Rules are being recast to improve the qualification of panchayat secretaries. Video-conferencing facilities are being set up at our office in Mohali for direct and periodic interaction with officials in the field. The concept of ‘panchayat sammelans’ has been given shape. This will enable direct interaction with sarpanches at the district level. We are highlighting success stories to promote the concept of model panchayats.

What is your immediate priority?

Besides focusing on reforms, I want to end open defecation in three years. The state will spend Rs 285 crore in three years to cover 5.5 lakh families who do not have a toilet. The scheme will be open to everyone who does not have a toilet in his or her home.

There have been complaints about the design of rural toilets. There are issues of seepage and waterlogging. Will these be addressed?

The design is sound. Problems have occurred where beneficiaries have made changes or are using excess water. The toilet seats are angled in such a manner that they require minimum water for cleaning. We have also brought in Sulabh under which besides construction of toilets, an awareness drive will be undertaken to ensure that these are used regularly. The company has been awarded a contract for constructing 15,000 toilets in the first phase.

The scheme for the houseless has not been implemented properly. What steps are you taking in this regard?

We are awaiting the latest socio-economic survey. The 2001 survey had identified only 4.40 lakh families living below poverty line (BPL). We expect the cost per house to be increased from the present Rs 45,000.

Any move to better the lot of village ponds?

There are ponds in 25,000 acres, that comes to roughly two acres per village. A plan has been made to rejuvenate 800 ponds this year. We are looking at a UNICEF technology that divides the pond into four parts with the first part being the inlet. Duckweed and fish will be used to clean the other parts.

Encroachment of village land and the manner in which ‘shamlat’ land is used has been a matter of controversy. What remedy do you suggest?

There will be zero tolerance towards encroachments. The department is in the process of getting cross cases filed wherever panchayat land has been encroached upon. We will get orders for eviction and reclaim such land. We have decided on a 24-hour helpline that will receive and track such complaints.

What is the status of livelihood improvement schemes?

We have 40 such schemes in 11 districts covering 1.84 lakh hectares. They include integrated watershed managements projects, mainly in the Kandi area, besides schemes encouraging drip irrigation, livestock development and provision of drinking water and roads in the backward regions of the state.

What challenges to you expect in the way of realising your goals?

Funds remain a challenge. We will try to ensure matching grants wherever needed. The state cannot avail of several schemes due to BPL limitations. Punjab needs area-specific schemes to accelerate the rate of development. We also want to be given special status. We have peculiar problems with industry being non-existent in border districts, some areas waterlogged and still others in Kandi thirsting for water.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2012/20120625/punjab.htm#2

Copyright : The Tribune Trust, 2007

Uncommon swing for commons

Author(s): Richard Mahapatra

Date: Jun 15, 2012

States rush in with new policies and programmes to protect village land

People of Gujarat’s Mundra coast are waging a battle to win back pasture land allotted to SEZ (Courtesy: MASS, Gujarat)

 

 

 

 

 

IN THE last week of April, the Gujarat government circulated a draft policy on pastoral land. The draft prohibits handing over of pastoral or gauchar land for industrial and other commercial purposes. This is unusual for a state, which had earmarked the same land for industrial uses. “If gauchar land is in the middle of an urban area, the government will denotify and sell the land and develop pastures at an alternative site,” says C L Meena, principal secretary, revenue department.

Rajasthan has taken a similar initiative to protect village common land. In November 2011, it became the first state to draft a policy for such land. Even before the draft is finalised, the state has issued orders to demarcate, develop and protect the commons.

Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka are doing the same. Fifteen other states are in various stages of declaring new policy and programmes for protecting village commons. This is all thanks to the Supreme Court order on freeing common land and property, like pastoral land and tanks, from encroachment and acquisition (see ‘Return of village land’, Down To Earth, February 16-28, 2011).

On January 28, 2011, the court directed all states to evict encroachers from village commons. “They (common property) were generally treated as inalienable in order that their status as community land be preserved,” the court noted in its ruling.

The order has spurred responses ranging from drafting common land policy to judicial orders on eviction of encroachers from commons. It is important because there has never been any focused attempt to protect and develop the country’s commons. In fact, there are no proper records of common properties which contribute substantially to local economy. The order came at a time when a large number of acquisitions of common land for infrastructure development is taking place in the country. Since 2002, the Centre has been trying to adopt a policy on common land but without any progress.

Wake-up call

Following the apex court’s direction, there have been five high court orders either admitting cases against taking over of village commons or rescinding such takeovers.

An analysis by non-profit Foundation for Ecological Security (FES) shows 29 judiciary pronouncements and 29 government orders on commons have been issued since the apex court order last year (see map). “A key problem with common land is that no single department is responsible for it. Thus, it falls very low on the priority list of the bureaucracy. The Supreme Court’s judgement helped in creating urgency for action for securing commons,” says Jagdeesh Rao, head of FES.

Facing some high-profile protests over common land acquisition, Gujarat has started compensating villages whose common land have been taken away: around Rs 23 crore have already been disbursed to create new pastureland. Without legal protection, village commons are shrinking fast. In the past three years, Gujarat has sold 116,000 square metres of such land for various purposes, leaving 424 villages without any pastoral land. The state has just one-fifth of its required pastoral land.

Rajasthan had enforced the apex court order in May last year and ordered works under the rural employment guarantee programme to be used for development of the commons. Under the policy, the state will transfer revenue wasteland to panchayats as grazing land.

Other courts, too, are taking cue from the order. In February, 2011, the Allahabad High Court ordered that a patch of three hectares in Chitrakoot be again recorded as a pond and given to the gram sabha. In the next three months, it gave similar verdicts in two other cases involving encroachment of two ponds on common land. In November, the Jharkhand High Court directed the state to make sure no more government land, which includes commons, is encroached upon.

Instances of communities using the order to assert rights over commons are also evident. On March 7 this year, the Goa High Court admitted a writ petition against diverting commons for real estate development. Residents of Moira village near Mapusa have used the order to free a large parcel of common land, called the comunidades in Goa, from the clutches of developers. Comunidades are in existence since the 11th century and are considered one of the best examples of community farming system. Under this, common land is leased for cultivation for three years. However, to cash in on the tourism boom, a nexus of revenue officials, panchayat members and developers has sold off such land parcels by terming them fallow.

Political motives?

The government’s newfound interest in commons could be due to political reasons. In states like Gujarat, Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh and Odisha, communities have been protesting common land acquisitions for industrial use.

Gujarat’s draft policy on pastor land is perceived to win the support of communities for the ruling party as it goes to election this year-end. “Gujarat’s stand is puzzling as it goes against its own orders of 2005 for allocation of charagah and common land for corporate farming. There is pressure from the maldhari community,” says Rao. It may perhaps be a step to secure their votes, he adds. In Rajasthan, where a large number of people depend on livestock rearing, there have been demands from communities to free grazing land.

Bureaucrats Down To Earth spoke to see the apex court order a mixed judgement that gives the government the opportunity to deal with highly unpopular commons takeovers. C S Rajan, additional chief secretary of Rajasthan, says the state was already drafting a land policy on common land. “The order provided the right opportunity to push for it. For communities, it will be economically beneficial.”

However, the response to the order has not been uniform. Though the court ordered compliance report by May 2011, only four such reports have come to light. The court has not listed the case since its verdict. In between, it has admitted FES’ plea to be a party to the case in terms of helping with its expertise on the subject. Civil society groups complain the order has not been expanded to commons like forests. Whatever implementation has taken place lacks “the right spirit”, says Gautam Bandhopadhya, a forest rights activist in Chhattisgarh.

A senior official of Chhattisgarh says delay in following up the case will render the actions taken till now less meaningful. “There is already a strong lobby working against the apex court’s direction despite orders from the highest authority in states,” he says.

http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/uncommon-swing-commons

Views: David Bollier - Rajasthan's Cutting-Edge Public Policies to Promote Land Commons

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

If only the rest of the world could emulate the Government of Rajasthan in India in adopting public policies to promote the commons! As the Times of India reports, “Rajasthan has become the first state in the country to have drafted a policy underlining the importance and the need to preserve and secure common land (commons) in rural areas.” There may be other such government policies around the world, but they are few and far between. The Rajasthan policies are a real breakthrough.

The Rajasthan government is in the process of identifying which grazing lands, common ponds and their catchment areas, playgrounds and other resources shall be treated as commons. Its new policies aim to decentralize governance, encourage conservation and proper ecological stewardship, assure fair access to and use of the lands, and facilitate public participation in all aspects of managing commons.

There are many forces that have propelled Rajasthan leadership in this area. Perhaps the most important is the region's livestock-based economy, which makes it politically attractive to resist the various commercial encroachments of grazing and farm land that are now occurring. (Aha – so this is one way that Hardin's tragedy of the commons is averted!)

Another catalyst was a landmark Indian Supreme Court ruling in 2011 that explicitly recognized customarily used ponds, land and other natural resources as commons. The Court declared enclosures illegal, authorized the eviction of encroachers, and stressed the need to restore existing commons. (More about this on my previous blog post here.) The Supreme Court ruling resulted in the eviction of a real estate developer who had filled in a village pond to build a development. It also declared that long-standing encroachments doesn't confer ownership rights on the encloser.

Another force pushing the Rajasthan government forward -- and collaborating with it -- has been the Foundation for Ecological Security (FES), a respected policy advocacy group in rural India. FES has launched a major “Commons Initiative” to validate the commons paradigm and to seek policy support for it. For more on this initiative, see its statement on “Commons and Community Institutions.” I recommend the special blog that FES has established, “Claim for Commons" which is intended to gather “all possible information related to the [Supreme Court's commons] judgement.”

At a workshop in Jaipur hosted by FES in 2011, the minister for rural development and panchayati raj (the village governance structures), Bharat Singh, decried the fact that money, muscle and political power were enclosing common land, with adverse consequences for commoners who depend upon those lands.

It is hard to know how the draft government policies for land commons will ultimately come out and how well they will be enforced. But the Rajasthan government's policy approach is quite serious and sophisticated. It provides an institutional umbrella for recognizing the commons, a programmatic focus, an enabling policy architecture, and funding.

The policy seeks to revamp existing institutions at the local level in order to strengthen decentralized governance of natural resources. And it aims to harmonize various local institutions with the Gram Panchayat level of governance – the village and small town unit of governance in India.

The Rajasthan policy framework is admirable in its holistic perspective; it does not appear to be beset by the bureaucratic silos and piecemeal statutes that afflict so much conventional regulation.

The policies explicitly seek to promote ecological restoration by empowering “the poor and marginalized to assert their claims and entitlements on common lands" and to “involve the local community [in playing] a central role in determining the governance and development of common lands.” The policy framework also aims “to enable the capacities of the community by facilitating the process of strengthening institutions for collective action around the Commons and build spaces that enable the poor and marginal groups.” Impressive!

The Hindu newspaper has written that “Vice-Chancellor of Gujarat Vidyapeeth Sudarshan Iyengar spoke on the Gandhian emphasis towards collective action. The commons had a major role in preserving the fertility of the soil, he noted. For the sustenance of both agriculture and the agrarian lifestyle it was important that the common lands survived, he stated."

Here are some section summaries that suggest the Rajasthan government's progressive understanding of the commons:

A holistic view to “greening” has been adopted wherein the scope of greening goes beyond trees and plantations. Emphasis is laid on natural regeneration and restoration of Commons, for example, grassland, pastures and other forms of common lands that are available. This will not only strive to restore degraded common lands, but will also contribute in restoration and regeneration of ecosystem functions and services. (Section 4.4)

‘Vulnerability’ and ‘potential’ shall be the criteria for intervention. Common lands shall be identified on the basis of their significance from the ecosystem functions and services such as biodiversity and hydrological services. (Section 4.5)

The Policy fosters an integrated approach using inter-sectoral convergence (e.g., livestock, forest, agriculture, rural development, and energy). (Section 4.6)

A comprehensive, robust and effective monitoring framework at four different levels has been designed to monitor the development of common lands in the state. (Section 4.7)

Speaking at a FES-hosted workshop in 2011, Dr. M.S. Rathore, an academic, noted that the draft policy consists of “improving the legal tenure, nesting governance of common lands within panchayats, maintaining village records on commons and limiting change in landuse, restoring common lands and water bodies with a programmatic focus, employing a scientific approach in restoration that is conducive to different ecosystems of Rajasthan, and setting up monitoring mechanisms to periodically update the status of commons.” Funds to implement the Rajasthan policies will come from the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme.

As an outsider to the Rajasthan policy process and political culture, I am not the best authority on this topic. And I am aware of previous shortcomings of previous governments in managing common lands (see, e.g., Rita Brava's “Commons' Policy as Process: The Case of Rajasthan, 1955-1985” in Economic and Political Weekly, October 7, 1989, pp. 2247-2254 -- unfortunately, behind a paywall.)

However, the Indian press and the FES are quite positive about the new Rajasthan commons policies – and for good reason. The lessons of the past – and the risks of investor-driven market encroachments – seem to have been learned. And the multiple opportunities for positive change enabled by the commons -- incredible as it may seem -- will soon be enshrined in law. 

Image: The Bhopa family of Rajasthan. Photo by Gianncarlo Duran, licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license, via Flickr.

http://bollier.org/rajasthans-cutting-edge-public-policies-promote-land-commons

News Article: Haryana: Prof. Sampat Singh demand probe in panchayat lands

Posted on Aug 09, 2011 - 12:28am by News Team in Haryana

Chandigarh, August 8—Prof. Sampat Singh,MLA from Nalwa Assembly Constituency has demanded that the amendments carried out in the year 2008 by Haryana Government in Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules,1964 should be made effective from November 1,1966 and lease amount at the rate of five per cent of the collector rate per year  should be charged on the panchayat land given by   various governments to the trusts, societies and  institutions as a gift or donation or on nominal prices.

Prof. Sampat Singh, who was addressing a press conference here today, said that the Haryana Government amended Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules,1964 on January 3,2008 and made a provision that panchayats could not be evicted from their land. This important step was taken by the Chief Minister Mr Bhupinder Singh Hooda to empower panchayats and create financial resources for them. This also led to transparency. The Chief Minister deserved all praise for this step, he added. He said that the state government should enquire about the use of panchayati land given to the trusts and societies and the allotment of such land should be cancelled in case the land was found to be used by the trust or society for purposes other than it was allotted for.

He said that the Haryana government should enquire that how many trusts, societies or other institutions in the state had been allotted land on lease and a resolution should also be introduced in the Vidhan Sabha to charge lease amount at the rate of five per cent of the collector rate per year on the public land given to the trusts or other institutions since the inception of the Haryana state till date. This can be easily done by implementing the above said amendment of 2008 in Punjab Village  Common Lands (Regulation) Rules,1964 retrospectively since November 1, 1966. In the mean time, the beneficiary trusts or societies or institutes should come forward themselves voluntarily and pay willingly the lease amount at the rate of five per cent of the collector rate per year on the land given to them on lease basis. He also appealed to the opposition leaders to support him on this issue of strengthening the panchayats financially.

He pointed out that a misinformation campaign was being carried out about the land given to Rajiv Gandhi Charitable Trust. Five acres panchayati land had been given to this trust on lease as per rules and on the concurrence of gram panchayat and lease amount at the rate of five per cent of the collector rate per year i.e. Rs. 15 Lac per year was being charged annually from the trust. The collector rate of this land was Rs 60 lakh per acre and village panchayat had earned Rs 30 lakh during the last two years from this land. Early the panchayat had leased the same land on Jun 11, 2004 for five years for a lump sum amount of Rs. 15,200 i.e. Rs. 600 hundred per acre per year. All the trusts and societies of the state should follow Mr Rahul Gandhi who has made full amount of Rs. 15 lacs per year at the rate of five per cent of the collector rate for the land given to the trusts, whereas the land given to the trusts would be used for the good of public, as an eye hospital would be set up on this land. The trust had made provisions for providing free medical care to the BPL families, rebate to the villagers and providing employment to the local people.

Taking a dig at BJP, Prof. Sampat Singh said that BJP leader Mr Raj Nath Singh visited the village Ullawas to take political mileage but he was clueless on being questioned about the panchayat of  Sadhrana village in Gurgaon district having gifted 30  kanal and 6 malr of shamlat land to the people for animals society for the construction fo Meneka Gandhi Veterinary Hospital while the BJP was a coalition partner in the state regime. Lashing out at INLD Supremo Mr Om Parkash Chautala, he said that land had also been gifted away to a number of trusts of Chautala family either free or on nominal rates. Inquiry should be made into this matter whether the land is being used for the purpose it was given or for commercial purpose. He asked Mr. Chautala whether he is ready to pay Rs. 3 lacs per acre per year for those panchayat lands owned by the trust of his family members. He said that he himself would seek information from the government of Haryana, Union Territory, Chandigarh and Delhi State etc. about the land given to such trusts under Right to Information Act.


http://www.theindiapost.com/?s=Prof.+Sampat+Singh+demand+probe+in+panchayat+lands