On Eminent Domain

Legislation on the powers of our The State to “acquire” land that belongs to the citizen for “public purposes” – which, perversely, includes private industrial projects – is The Topic of the day, with two editorials arguing that Mamata Banerjee and the Trinamool are wrong.

Here is the Indian Express.

Here is Mint.

At the outset, I must mention that I have direct experience of The State wanting to acquire the property in which I was living. This was a few years ago, in Goa. A north-south expressway had been proposed. And maps were circulated on its alignment, which showed that our property was sure to go.

It was a horrible feeling. I would not wish it on anyone.

To the editors who have supported “property takings” by State force, my plea is that they must sometimes spare a thought for those dispossessed. Yes, progress and industrialization is a great cause – but none should be made to suffer forcible seizure of property for this cause.

In my book, if the private businessman can acquire only 70 per cent of the land he had planned to acquire, then he must adjust accordingly – and build a smaller factory. There is simply no case that The State should be called in. There is absolutely no “public purpose” here. It is entirely about private enterprise and private purpose.

What is my take on “eminent domain”? This question has come up in readers’ comments recently.

I read a story as a child of a farmer in the American mid-west who had the good fortune to own land smack-bang-middle of a proposed highway. He threw a party when he heard the news. The price paid for his land was much more than market price – the value of his neighbouring farms – and from the proceeds he bought a cottage in the Canary Islands and settled down to a comfortable retirement.

If The State offered such “inducements” to those whose properties it seeks to acquire, even we would have celebrated in Goa when we heard the news that our property lay on the path of an expressway. Maybe we too would have moved to the Canary Islands – which lie very close to Morocco :). Or maybe we would have moved to Jamaica :) :) :).

So that’s my take on eminent domain. Whether it is The State that acquires property or any private party does so, in no case can pure force be used. The only just method is inducement.

The “project-affected persons” should party all night on hearing of their good fortune. Their properties should go for a much higher price than that of their neighbours, whose properties are not affected.

Only this approach can be called Just.

Road-building constitutes a great “public purpose”: we all benefit. Even foreign tourists benefit. No one should suffer for this cause. Compensation should not only be more than adequate, it should be hugely generous.

Even here, I do believe if there are some “holdouts” for reasons of sentiment or faith – as in the case of a shrine or a graveyard – force should not be used, and the road should be re-aligned.

No Misuse of Force: that is the ideal.