By IANS,
Lucknow : The Congress party Wednesday termed the proposed call given by the Rashtriya Lok Dal (RLD) to lay siege to the national parliament as an attempt to divert the attention of the masses from the real issues of the farmers.
In a statement issued here, Uttar Pradesh Congress Kisan cell chief V.M. Singh said: “The call for gherao (siege) was ostensibly meant to pressurise the UPA (United Progressive Alliance) government for making suitable amendments in the Land Acquisition Act of 1894.”
“But it was clearly a well planned strategy to divert the attention of the farmers who are agitating against the inadequate compensation offered by the Mayawati government for their land acquired for building the 165 km Noida-Agra Yamuna Expressway,” he said.
While the state government was ready to enhance their offer from Rs.430 per sq metre to Rs.560 per sq metre, farmers were sticking to their demand for parity in compensation with their counterparts in Noida and Greater Noida, where they are paid at the rate of Rs.860 per sq metre.
“Obviously it suits the BSP (Bahujan Samaj Party) if the focus of the agitation and resentment against the state is diverted by the RLD towards Delhi,” Singh alleged, while adding “this is not the first time that RLD has bailed out the BSP government by diverting the farmers’ issues.”
He asked: “While there can be no two ways that the archaic Land Acquisition Act merits major amendments, the question is whether passing of the amendment of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by parliament will help the cause of the agitating farmers of the Yamuna Expressway or Taj Expressway or Ganga Expressway being built by the Mayawati government?”
“A lot of hue and cry was raised over the issue that Land Acquisition Act being an 1894 Act has outlived its utility. It is being projected that the Act is going to be amended for the first time since 1894.
“The fact is that there have been various amendments from time to time with the last one in 1984. In any case, that was not the only Act which goes back a 100 years. There were many such laws such as Registration of Societies Act, 1860; Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Contract Act, 1872 and Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881,” he added.
According to Singh: “The problem is not with the Act but with the intention of different state governments.”
He went on to argue: “When the same Act did not pose any hurdle in smooth acquisitions that were made in the recent past in Delhi and Haryana, why all the problems in Uttar Pradesh?”