On December 7, 2007 the government introduced a Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill in the Lok Sabha. This Bill was accompanied by the Resettlement and Rehabilitation (R&R) Bill, 2007. There has been no discussion yet on the Bill; it has been referred to a Standing Committee.

The UPA government has been pushing forward aggressively with the establishment of Special Economic Zones (SEZs). State governments have been vying with each other to attract huge investments from the biggest capitalists. Land has been acquired from peasants, most of the time forcibly, for establishing SEZs. There has been vigorous opposition from the peasants and from all those who support the right to livelihood of the tillers. A state government – that of Goa – has even been forced to publicly declare it will not establish SEZ’s. However, the Centre is bent on guaranteeing the interests of big capital. The Land Acquisition Bill and the Resettlement and Rehabilitation Bill must be viewed in this light.

With the introduction of this Bill, the government has reiterated its "right" to take over land from peasants, a “right” that it had assumed from 1947 when it continued with the colonial Land Acquisition Act (1894). Under colonial rule, the Land Acquisition Act (1894) enabled the state to acquire land for any purpose with minimum compensation. While acquisition was always made under the guise of "public purpose", what constituted this "public purpose" was neither defined nor limited by the law.

This "legality" was preserved even after 1947, with only one change – that the Indian state was forced by public opposition to define "public purpose" and defend it by law! In response to a landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in 1962 which held that the government could not justify acquiring land for a textile machinery manufacturer as a "public purpose", the government amended the law to allow land to be acquired for a company "which is engaged in or is taking steps for engaging in any industry or work for a public purpose".

In recent years, with the campaign to establish more and more SEZs, land acquisition has been reported across the country but it has come up against militant opposition in several places. The militant opposition of peasants in Nandigram to the proposed SEZ dealt a serious blow to the West Bengal government's attempts to forcibly acquire land. The right of any government to forcibly acquire land came under question. At this point the Central Government was forced to retreat and it responded with a temporary freeze on approvals of any SEZs. The opposition to the acquisition of land by the government was intensifying and there was fierce public debate on the whole issue.

In April 2007, even as the government raised the freeze on SEZs, it attempted to placate the peoples opposition with some minor modifications on the total amount of land for an SEZ (5000 hectares for multi-product SEZs) and the minimum proportion of land to be used for production of the specified commodities (50% for all SEZs, rather than 35% for some). The Expert Group of Ministers set up to look into the issue advised state governments to avoid using the Land Acquisition Act to seize agricultural land, but rather leave it to the ‘market forces’.

However, the bourgeoisie recognized that “leaving it to the market forces” will not work. , It has demanded that the state intervene on its behalf to enforce acquisition in the face of opposition. So the clause "public purpose" has come up again in the Bill. Further, land can be acquired by the state government for “persons” that will include “any company or association or body of individuals whether incorporated or not where land is required for purposes useful for the general public.” The government has retained right to acquire upto 30% of the land that is required by the private party wanting to acquire land, and then hand over this land to the “developer”. This means the SEZ developer and the government will work in tandem, to break the resistance of the farmers through “market forces” and if that fails with the full force of state machinery.

There can be no illusions about the purpose of this Bill. This "amendment" to the Land Acquisition Act (1894) has been passed by the government not to give a "fair deal" to those peasants whose land is being taken away for the establishment of SEZs by big corporations. The primary objective is, one more time, to legitimize forcible acquisition of land. It remains the government's prerogative to declare anything as "useful for the general public"; for e.g., that such a SEZ would increase employment (even as it deprives a set of people of their livelihood!).

The Land Acquisition Bill (amendment) Bill 2007 is accompanied by the Resettlement and Rehabilitation (R&R) Bill that seeks to set up a land acquisition compensation disputes settlement authority and delineate the compensation packages to be awarded when land is acquired. Though the Bills introduced in December 2007 give rights of compensation to tenant farmers, agricultural labourers and even non-agricultural labourers whose livelihood will be impacted by the acquisition of land and displacement, the whole experience of project-affected and displaced people tells us that any amount of legislation does not guarantee just and timely compensation. That the R&R Bill requires the government to undertake a social impact assessment by a multi-disciplinary expert group means very little to those likely to be deprived of their land and livelihood.

The only just course is to abolish the SEZ Act and the Land Acquisition Act. It is not acceptable that "public purpose" is defined by the government against the interests of the vast majority of working people. Workers, peasants, and all working people in our country must demand that the Land Acquisition Act Bill must not be passed and demand that a new law be enacted and enforcing mechanisms established, to prevent land from being bought for private profit through any route.