Viagra for saale | CANADIAN PHARMACY ONLINE! Save up to 80%!

According to the National Advisory Council 2, http://nac.nic.in/press_releases/25_may_2011.pdf

Suggestions for Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill 2009 & Resettlement and Rehabilitation Bill, 2009, http://nac.nic.in/pdf/working_group_proposal_for_larr.pdf:

•    The NAC has recommended that it is upto the states to decide the extent of percentage of the total land to be acquired by them. In principle, the NAC disagrees with the 70:30 formula.

•    Acquired land non-performing for five years should be returned to original owners is another recommendation of NAC, which has been also well received.

•    Giving freedom to the industry to acquire land directly could result in large scale cheating and deception in tribal and poor areas of India.

•    The NAC has recently asked for consolidating the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill 2009 and Resettlement and Rehabilitation Bill, 2009 under the title Land Acquisition, Resettlement and Rehabilitation Act, 2011. The NAC wants a combined Bill instead of two separate bills since both the Bills are intrinsically inter-related, and having two separate Bills may lead to possibility of amending one without amending the other, and selective application of provisions of each Act, thereby defeating the purpose of providing justice and relief to those displaced.

•    Passing of separate bills will set in motion fragmented processes, causing confusion, delays, and therefore avoidable distress and suffering for the people. According to the NAC, a separate R&R Bill won't be required to address displacement due to natural disasters and communal and caste violence since there are separate laws being enacted for Natural Disasters and Communal Violence.

•    The NAC thinks that the proposed Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 2009 does not explicitly mention the poor, and incorporates infrastructure and strategic interests. It has a provision for state acquisition of land for private for-profit companies. Section 5 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment Act) Bill, 2009 is silent on the nature of public interest proposed and the financial, social and environmental costs and benefits associated with a project.

Compensation

•    Project Affected Families (PAFs) can make a choice in the way compensation is offered- i.) as a lump-sum amount; ii.) 30% as a lumpsum amount, and the rest as an annuity at the rate of 12% interest escalating every year for 33 years; or iii.) The total value as an annuity at the rate of 12% interest escalating every year, for 33 years. The latter two would be adjusted for inflation by escalating every year by 10%.

•    Share-croppers, landless labourers, artisans et al should receive ten days’ minimum wage per month for thirty three years when land is acquired by the State for ‘public purposes’.

•    For such persons, there would be additional provisions for homestead land, training and employment rehabilitation in the rehabilitation and resettlement package.

•    The NAC has emphasized that lawfully recorded tenants and sharecroppers should be compensated (and paid solatium) for the parcels of land that they are losing, on an 80%:20% basis with the landowner being given 20%, which should not be less than four times their current income.

•    A minimum of 5% shares should be distributed (equitably) free of cost to PAFs (increased by 5% for every additional 100 acres acquired). If the Government is allowed to acquire land, then land owners and non-land owners who depended on that land should enjoy four times their present monthly income after acquisition.

•    The NAC has proposed that compensation for those who lose land will be six times the registered sale deed value including solatium.

Rehabilitation and Resettlement

•    The NAC has demanded transparency, public consulting, and prior informed consent during the process of land acquisition. The legal rights of Project Affected Families (PAFs) to challenge the entitlement cannot be withdrawn as it has been done under R&R Bill, 2009. Section 11 of the R&R Bill, 2009 needs to be amended so that all compensation must be paid and R&R for all affected persons must be completed in all aspects at least 6 months before taking possession.

•    Section 3(b) (ii) of the R&R Bill, 2009 does not mention the extent to which affected families have been deprived of their primary source of livelihood.

•    All individual entitlements, such as land for land (where applicable), housing, employment and training opportunities, should be compulsorily offered to all PAFs irrespective of size of acquisition as per the NAC. Compulsory provisions for land for land are non-negotiable in case of all tribal and dalit families (to discourage acquisition of tribal and dalit land) and all irrigation projects. There should be an authority like the Auditor General of Displacement and Rehabilitation (AG-DR) to find out after 5 or 10 years of displacement as to what is the present condition of those displaced.

•    Instead of the Government notifying what amenities are to be provided in resettlement sites as per the Section 30 of the R&R 2009 Bill, basic amenities like roads, safe drinking water, hygiene, educational facilities, community hall, and basic irrigation facilities should be present at resettlement sites. Every PAF family (and not just the BPL homeless families) should be given a built house and homestead land title.

•    Consent of 70 percent of the affected families in a gram sabha before acquisition is compulsory. A National Commission for Land Acquisition, Resettlement and Rehabilitation (NCLRR) should be established to assess extent of displacement based on the Social Impact Assessment (SIA) and and urgency clause for land acquisition should be used for purposes such as defence, national security and safety of lives as per recommendations of the NAC. The SIA would assess the social and environmental impacts from the project, and the R&R plan drawn up.

According to the Standing Committee Report on the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill 2007
http://prsindia.org/uploads/media/Land%20Acquisition/scr1226484896_SC_Report_Land_Acquisition_Bill__2008.pdf:

•    Optimum size of land required for a project needs to be determined so that excessive acquisition of land doesn't take place.

•    There should be some legislation like Forest Conservation Act 1980 so that agricultural land can be protected like forest land.

•    There is an urgent need to develop wasteland where agricultural land is acquired.

•    Since displacement leads to traumatic psychological and socio-cultural consequences, multiple displacements of affected families need to be avoided.

•    States should declare the area where the tribals are rehabilitated as Scheduled Area. Land rights of tribals and forest dwellers should be recognized as per the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 so that they are compensated and rehabilitated during the process of land acquisition.

•    The details of the property to be acquired viz. khasra numbers in rural areas and quarter number in urban areas should be identified and widely publicized through prominent local English, Hindi and regional language newspapers. There is a need to avoid complications arising due to inadequacy of communicating the intent of acquisition through notification especially in hilly, tribal and remote areas. In order to circulate notification on rehabilitation and resettlement, the Government should rely on newspapers in local vernacular.

•    Affected persons should be provided 60 days from the date of publication of the notification to object to the acquisition of land.

•    Social Impact Assessment study should be done for all projects that displace physically more than 400 families in plain and 200 families in hilly, tribal and scheduled areas (same as NAC recommendation).

•    Highest price of sale deed as indicated in the sale deeds of the last three years plus 50 per cent of the said highest price should be the criteria for assessing and determining the market value of the land. For tribal areas, the highest price of a sale deed of the adjoining non-tribal blocks/ village for the last three years plus 50 per cent should be the criteria for assessing and determining the market value of land.

•    Non agricultural land having valuable mineral resources underneath should be properly evaluated for granting compensation.

•    A share of the economic benefits earned due to setting up a project in a land, which is acquired should go to the affected families.

•    Issue of shares and debentures as part of the compensation is impractical and as such issue of shares and debentures should be over and above the admissible compensation. The rate of solatium should be increased from thirty per centum on market value to sixty per centum on market value.

•    Land Acquisition Compensation Disputes Settlement Authorities (a kind of Ombudsman) at the Centre and State level should be created for the disposal of disputes, which remain pending in the courts of law.

•    Record of large tracts of unutilized land available with various Ministries needs to be kept before further land acquisition.

**page**

According to A CITIZENS REPORT CARD ON SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONES prepared by civil society organization, South Asia Citizens' web:

http://www.sacw.net/IMG/pdf/CITIZENSREPORTONSEZs.pdf

THE NUMBERS

    * Total amount of land to be acquired across India: 150,000 hectares (the area of National Capital Region). This land - predominantly agricultural and typically multicropped - is capable of producing close to 1 million tons of foodgrains. If SEZs are seen to be successful in the future and more cultivated land is acquired, they will endanger the food security of the country.

    * The latest available statistics on Special Economic Zones show that the Board of Approvals at the Ministry of Commerce, the central body authorised to clear SEZ proposals, has approved 578 SEZs of which 315 have been notified.

    * An analysis of figures up to 8th December 2008 displays a continuation of the pattern which has been evident since SEZ Act in 2005.

    * As of December 2008 the Central government gave formal approvals to a staggering 552 SEZs in 19 states; 272 of these have been notified. (As of April 2009 the total number of Formal approvals was 578 and notified SEZs were 330)

    * With the significant economic slow-down towards the end of 2008 for the first time we started to see companies applying to de-register/denotify SEZs and it remains to be seen what the net effect will be.

    * The overwhelming part of SEZs continues to be in information technology and related industries. 181 notified SEZs exist for IT companies representing 66% of the total number of SEZs. Additionally there are 341 formally approved and 11 in-principle approvals.

    * With all the different SEZs taken together at various stages of approval the IT sector still accounts for more than half at 55% of the total. The second largest sector will be multi-product with 9% of the all zones.

    * Andhra Pradesh tops the list of notified SEZs with 57, followed by Tamil Nadu on 44 and Maharashtra on 43.

    * Maharashtra has the most SEZs waiting to be notified however with 104 formally approved and 34 in principle, compared to AP's 99 and 2 respectively and Tamil Nadu's 66 and 18.

    * These three states thus account for almost half of all the SEZs in the country. The share is especially significant among the already notified SEZs with 144 out of the total 274.

    * Even more imbalanced is the spread of SEZs when one considers the locations within each state. 48 out of the 99 formally approved SEZs in Andhra Pradesh are in or close to Hyderabad, while 34 of 66 formally approved are similarly in or close to Chennai.

    * The main number of SEZs can thus easily be characterised as being in the IT-sector and in one of primarily Western or Southern cities.

    * This said, almost every state has tried to get a couple of SEZs to be established within their territories includingtiny Dadra & Haveli's 4, and Pondicherry's 1 formally approved zones.

    * 53 multiproduct SEZs are at the in principle approval stage meaning they might soon become formally notified. These are the zones which require really large areas of land and have been contentious on the issue of displacement.

    * Recently the rule preventing larger SEZs than 5,000 hectares was lifted which lead the Adani group to apply for and get granted a merger between the 3 zones of (4498 + 2658 + 2648 hectares) it had created next to each other at Mundra in Gujarat to avoid the land ceiling

    * Among the actually operating SEZs the biggest ones apart from the Mundra zone(s) in Gujarat is APIIC 2,206 ha SEZ in Visakhapatnam and the Kakinada SEZ 1,035 ha both in Andhra Pradesh and the Navi Mumbai SEZ 1,223 ha in Maharashtra

    * With the many really large multi-product SEZs in the In Principle category these cover an area of 1.22 lakh hectares, or 869 hectares per SEZ on average.

ISSUES OF CONCERN

   1. Large scale requirement of land and Forced Acquisition of Land - India is almost unique in its concept of creating SEZs on demand: i.e. the location, size and nature of the zone is explicitly determined not by state economic policy but by the demands of private capital.

   2. Despite issuing of guidelines by the Ministry of Commerce and the EGoM, that no forced acquisition of land will take place for private SEZs on 15th June 2007, nearly all states are using the Land Acquisition Act 1894 to acquire the land for developers of SEZs and that too in the absence of any provision for rehabilitation

   3. In some states like Tamil Nadu and AP the governments are even using the urgency clause - 17/4 of the LAA to acquire land compulsorily.

   4. It is argued that much of the land being diverted for SEZs is already available with the State Industrial development Corporations (IDCs). While this is a fact, it needs to be specified that in many cases lands which had previously been acquired by IDCs and are now being transferred to SEZ developers also used the Land Acquisition Act.

   5. These sales are obviously at much higher rates than their original acquisition price from the farmers.

   6. The issue of compensation at market value, even to land owners is meaningless as the scales are heavily weighed in favor of private buyers and Government owned Industrial corporations, who are the informed negotiators in deciding the package

Landless and Agricultural labourers displaced without compensation-

   1. Almost 80% of the agricultural population in India owns only about 17% of the total agriculture land, making them near-landless workers. Far more families and communities depend on a piece of land (for work, grazing) than those who own it outright. However, compensation is being discussed only for those who hold titles to land. No compensation has been planned for those who do not.

   2. In states like Gujarat a large part of the land being diverted to SEZs is in the category of common or gowcher land (referred to wrongly as'wasteland').Since these lands are 'common lands' with no individual titles, they are transferred without even consulting the local communities and panchayats.

   3. Temple or Panchami land in Tamil Nadu and Waqf board lands in Andhra Pradesh are other examples of Public lands that have been expropriated and privatised for SEZs.

   4. The most outrageous acquisitions are taking place in Andhra Pradesh which has the highest number of SEZ approvals, in the form of acquiring assigned lands (allotted to Dalits and Scheduled Tribes) for SEZs. . This has been seen clearly in places like Polepally, Kakinada, Chittoor and Anantapur where SEZs are proposed.

Destruction of Agro-based and rural economies-

   1. The bulk of land being acquired for SEZs is fertile, agricultural land, especially in case of the multi-product zones. Agriculture Scientists have estimated that close to 1.14 lakh farming households (each household on an average comprising five members) and an additional 82,000 farm worker families who are dependent upon these farms for their livelihoods, will be displaced.

   2. The total loss of income to the farming and the farm worker families, then, is an astounding Rs.212-crore a year. These were the estimates in 2006 after the initial SEZ approvals which are now multiplied three-fold.

Creation of exploitative employment opportunities and working conditions resulting from nullification of labour protection laws -

    * The SEZ policy of the government transfers all the powers of the state Labor Commissioner to the Development Commissioners of the SEZs.

    * The power in the hands of the development Commissioner to declare SEZs as "public utility services" under the Industrial Disputes Act would mean that in SEZ areas workers will have no rights to strike or even to form unions and organize collectively to bargain for better wages or working conditions.

ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS

    * The Ministry of Finance conducted a study, and came up with the figures that the cumulative revenue loss from tax holidays to SEZs over the period 2004-05 to 2009-10 is estimated to be 1,75,487 Cr.

    * The Ministry of Finance conducted a study, and came up with the figures that the cumulative revenue loss from tax holidays to SEZs over the period 2004-05 to 2009-10 is estimated to be 1,75,487 Cr.

    * In its performance audit-report on indirect taxes for Union Government tabled in parliament on 11 March 2008, the CAG brought 370 SEZ units under scanner with a limited objective to verify if they had complied with existing Customs Act, Rules, notifications etc. The review brought out systemic as well as compliance weaknesses that caused lost revenues to the tune of Rs.246.72 crores.

**page**

Stated objectives remain unfulfilled?

    * The Secretary of the Ministry of Commerce has admitted that 40% of the SEZs approved may never really "take off the ground" (Panos-Kalpavriksh media dialogue on SEZs -December 2008). Additionally the figures of 3.5 lakhs employment and 90,000 crores investment generated by SEZs are being questioned on their authenticity and efficacy since these have to be established through a detailed and independent evaluation.

    * Further the conditions of contract labour in SEZs are the most pathetic. Wages in existing SEZs are often below minimum. Sen and Dasgupta in a May 2007 survey found that in the NOIDA SEZ workers were getting Rs.80 a day for 9 hours of work. Likewise in Falta in West Bengal.

    * Indian policy has very little regulation on the activity within a zone. Notwithstanding claims of export-orientation, the only requirement imposed on SEZ units is a vague need for them to have a ‘positive net foreign exchange balance.' Even that only applies to industrial units in the zone. If the goal of SEZs is indeed exports surely a more stringent clause than merely "positive net foreign exchange" for the SEZ as a whole ought to be applied.

    * It needs to be mentioned further that a great recession in the world economy is not a good omen for promoting SEZs, which will produce for an increasingly shrinking and protected export market. Also, it's not specified what happens to a developer whose SEZ does not meet the export requirement.

    * Just like it's not specified what the procedure for denotification is. The recession - and the accompanying demand for denotification by developers like DLF (SEZs) is exposing this loophole. In such cases what happens to the land? Will it be returned to farmers? If so, how?

    * The SEZ Act (Section 9, 11, 12 and 31) takes power back to the center and bureaucracy (by creating 'Board of Approvals' and 'Development Commissioner' and ‘SEZ Authority', whose accountability is not certain.

    * The fact that the SEZs would have their own regulations, the rights for environmental and labour related clearances, security arrangements, means that they would be 'self contained privatized autonomous entities', where existing constitutional rights would be difficult to exercise.

    * The creation of separate courts for SEZs ridicules the existing judicial system. There is no clarity about how elections will be conducted, and what happens to the governing authority of the Gram Sabha/ Municipality, under the 73rd/74th amendments.

    * There is no transparency in the guidelines formulated for selection, modification and rejection of SEZ proposals by the BoA.The Chairman of the Administrative reforms committee, M Veerappa Moily's report on SEZs states that 'We need to restructure the Board of Approval by putting in people who are objective and can take a balanced view.'

    * The Commerce Ministry had made public announcements of various studies/ comparison of SEZ with other countries. Mr. Kirit Somaya filed an RTI regarding this, and in the answer that was given stated - "study of export of nearby countries of Bangladesh and Sri Lanka was done. No other studies or scientific analysis available."

    * The SEZ Act was passed in haste without much public debate.In both houses of Indian Democracy has passed this bill was passed within a day (10th and 11th May 2005) with virtually no discussion, undermining many of the objections that were raised.

    * Further, information that has been demanded from the Ministry of Commerce on the approved projects under the RTI Act, 2005 has been denied on the clause of maintaining "trade secrets".

    * There is great deal of ambiguity and contradictions when one compares how environment clearances are dealt with in the EIA notification and the SEZ legislations.

    * While it is units with the SEZs which are exempt from Environment Clearance public hearings, the SEZs itself are required to under go public hearing. However, there are cases like the Mundra SEZ where the Ministry of Environment has recommended that Public Hearing be exempted for the creation of the Multi Product SEZ.

The CAG report on the Goa Industrial Development Corporation, referred to the Government of India in June 2008, concluded (direct quotes):

    * Corporation deviated from its established role, of acquiring and allotting land directly to the entrepreneur, by allotting land to developers for further allotments by them

    * Allotments were made without any transparent selection procedures

    * Allotments to SEZs were made without publicising, that too before the State Government formulated its SEZ policy

    * Land acquired for small and medium scale industries under IGC (Industrial Growth Centre) Scheme was allotted to SEZ violating GOI guidelines

    * Revision of premium rate of Verna Phase IV (industrial estate proposed to house SEZs) only after major chunk was allotted at lower rate, tentatively fixed, resulted in loss of Rs. 36.89 crore

    * Allotment of land contiguous to the land allotted to four SEZs at lesser rate resulted in loss of Rs. 39.47 crore

    * Allotment of 14.36 lakh square metre land to two SEZ developers without adopting approved formula resulted in loss of Rs 17.76 crore

(Source: The Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Goa State Report, Chapter VII Government Commercial and Trading Activities)

POINTS RAISED BY PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE

   1. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Commerce of the previous government under the Chairman ship of Murli Manohar Joshi submitted its 83rd report on the 'Functioning of SEZs' to the parliament on 20th June 2007.

   2. The most critical recommendation made by the committee included the need to 'pause and ponder'.

   3. The report clearly expressed concern about the fast pace at which approvals have been granted by the BoA despite apprehensions raised from all quarters.

   4. Parliamentary Standing committee slammed the Ministry of Commerce on the ground that at the time of the release of the 83rd report there were 152 formal approvals and 82 notifications by the Board of Approvals and there was no effort to put a halt on the approvals despite the committee's recommendation to hold approvals till amendments were put in place.

   5. By the time the ATR was presented in the Rajya Sabha the total number of approved SEZs had crossed 500. The MoC has merely stated that it was in the process of getting a 'scientific evaluation' done on the performance and impacts of SEZs.

   6. Most importantly the report criticised the escalation of displacement as a result of the large SEZs leading to displacement and speculation in many situations.

   7. Some of the other recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee which were brushed aside by the Ministry of Commerce in the ATR include:

   8. Region wise cap on the SEZ approvals to allow for balanced regional development of SEZs.

   9. Imposition of restrictions on unnecessary social infrastructure Linking of fiscal incentives to exports

10. Tax concessions in SEZs are similar to STPs and EoUs - then why is there are a need for SEZs?

11. Re-look at delegation of Labour Commissioner's powers to the Development Commissioner

12. 83rd report of the parliamentary standing committee on commerce 'on the functioning of Special Economic Zones'

**page**

FOR MORE PLEASE CLICK THE LINKS LISTED BELOW

Paper presented at the National Seminar on 'Special Economic Zones: Engines of Growth and Social Development for India: Present Problems and Future Prospects' (16 - 17 October '08 at Hyderabad) organised by the Department of Sociology, Osmania University.
http://www.sacw.net/article574.html

SEZ Act-2005
http://www.cnisbss.org/Newsline/PDF/SEZ/SEZ%20Act,%202005.pdf

Fact Sheet on Special Economic Zones by GOI- MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
http://sezindia.nic.in/writereaddata/updates/FACT%20sheet.pdf

List of operational SEZs
http://sezindia.nic.in/writereaddata/pdf/ListofoperationalSEZs.pdf

List of Formal Approvals granted under the SEZ Act,2005 http://sezindia.nic.in/about-asi.asp

In principle approvals granted under the SEZ Act, 2005- http://sezindia.nic.in/about-asi.asp

Statewise distribution of SEZs approved under the SEZ, Act, 2005- http://sezindia.nic.in/about-asi.asp

Sectorwise distribution of SEZs approved under the SEZ Act, 2005- http://sezindia.nic.in/about-asi.asp

A critique of the National Policy for Rehabilitation and Resettlement (2007) by Priyanca Mathur Velath,
http://infochangeindia.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=7235 show

    * On October 11, 2007, the Union Government announced the National Policy for Rehabilitation and Resettlement 2007 (NPRR 2007), replacing the National Policy on Resettlement and Rehabilitation for Project-Affected Families, 2003.

    * The new policy fails to examine the process of displacement, which is taken for granted. The draft makes no attempt to question the need for displacement in the first place, or to seek out and actively promote non-displacing or least-displacing alternatives.

    * The timing and true intention of the new policy along with govt.'s declaration to amend the outdated Land Acquisition Act of 1894 are suspect.

    * Attempt to redefine the ‘public purpose' under the amendment to the land acquisition act actually favours private interest and big companies over the poor and marginalised.

    * Under the 2007 policy it has become simpler to required land for big companies as well as strategic and public infrastructure projects.

    * 'Public purpose' has been redefined to allow the state government to acquire land for a private company, association or body of individuals, provided it is 'useful for general public'.

    * 'Land for land' principle in the 2007 policy suffers from ambiguity, as land is being offered as compensation but 'to the extent that government land is available in resettlement areas'.

    * The policy outlines a number of benefits such as scholarships for the education of eligible people from affected families; preference for groups of cooperatives of affected persons in the allotment of contracts and other economic opportunities in and around the project site; housing benefits to landless affected families in both rural and urban areas; and wage employment to willing affected persons in construction work on the project. But the ‘employment guarantee' to one person from each nuclear family is ‘subject to the availability' of vacancies and ‘suitability of the affected person'. Such qualifying clauses as "if available" and "as far as possible" are widely used by project authorities and policymakers to shirk responsibility.

    * Conducting a Social Impact Assessment (SIA) has been made mandatory in the policy, but only if more than 400 families have been displaced in the plains areas and 200 in tribal, hilly and other scheduled areas. Why is the SIA mandatory only in projects above a certain size?

    * There are provisions in the 2007 policy to introduce a Land Acquisition Compensation Settlement Authority (at the local level, removed from normal civil courts, to assist quick disposal of cases involving compensation disputes), a standing relief and rehabilitation authority at the district level, an ombudsman at the state level (to monitor rehabilitation under any project), a national monitoring committee and national monitoring cell (for effective monitoring of implementation of resettlement plans, with which state governments will have to share information) and a national rehabilitation commission (which will be empowered to exercise independent oversight over the rehabilitation and resettlement of affected families). Aggrieved persons can appeal to the high court and above against settlements decided by the Land Acquisition Compensation Settlement Authority. But the policy does not answer the crucial question as to whether these committees and commissions are empowered to stop a project from proceeding if there are indeed any discrepancies or issues of inadequate resettlement.

    * Resettlement rights must be guaranteed before any project begins and, in the event of faulty or inadequate resettlement, the project should be stopped from proceeding any further and the project developers held accountable. NPRR 2007 does not address any of these issues; nor does it give displaced persons ‘first rights' over the benefits of the project in question.

Positive points about the National Policy for Rehabilitation and Resettlement:

    * This policy makes an important announcement that land acquired by the government will revert to the government in case the proposed project does not take off within five years of the acquisition. Since land is often acquired in excess of what is needed and later handed over to the developers for extraneous purposes like building hotels, parks and golf courses, this new clause is a positive one.

    * Another creditable clause in the new policy is that if the land is sold after the project has taken off, 80% of the net profit earned from the sale goes to the original landowner. Also, that land acquired for ‘public purpose' cannot be changed to any other purpose.

The study by Planning Commission titled Dams, Displacement, Policy and Law in India,
http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/articles/ncsxna/art_dam.pdf show:

    * With the adoption of policies for planned development after freedom in India, a major priority for policymakers was the harnessing of the country's water resources for irrigation and power. Large storage works such as the Bhakra, the Hirakud, the Tungabhadra and the Damodar Valley Dams were amongst the earliest projects undertaken in the post-Independence period in the country.

    * A formidable body of independent empirical research into many of these large dams has established how their social, human and environmental costs have been ignored or grossly understated in the planning of these projects. Of the very many neglected costs of the big dams, some of the most grave are the social and human consequences of displacement.

    * There are no reliable official statistics of the numbers of people displaced by large projects since Independence. Many researchers place their estimates between 10 and 25 million. In an influential 1989 study, Fernandes, Das and Rao provide an estimate of some 21 million displaced persons. Scholar-administrator Dr. N. C. Saxena, places his estimate of persons displaced by big projects since 1947 at nearly double this figure - 50 million.

    * From the inception of planning of most projects, through various stages of displacement and resettlement, it is to be expected that those likely to be negatively affected by the projects would be consulted and kept informed in such a way as to enable them to best rebuild their ravaged lives. This, however, is very far from being the case. The studies have revealed that the level of information that the oustees had regarding the dam, submergence and subsequent displacement due to them, is lamentably low.

    * It is only in recent years that, chiefly under the impact of people's movements, project authorities, state governments and international funding agencies have accepted responsibility for rehabilitation-one that extends beyond the payment of monetary compensation for expropriated individual assets and the provision of house sites. This neglect of rehabilitation assumes the gravest aspect when seen in relation to older projects, particularly those that commenced or were concluded in the first three decades after Independence.

    * It has been observed that the driving objective of project authorities has not been to prepare and assist the families to relocate and to make a gradual and less painful transition to their new habitats. Instead frequently the only objective is to vacate the submergence zone of what are perceived to be its human encumbrances, with the brute force of the state if necessary. The evacuation of the villages was carried out with brutal insensitivity towards the feelings of the villagers who, not unnaturally, were bewildered and distressed at being forced out of their homes.

    * Resettlement sites are often inhospitable in a number of ways and their locations are selected without reference to availability of livelihood opportunities, or the preferences of displaced persons themselves.

    * With the destruction of community and social bonds, the displaced are mired in anomie and a profound sense of loneliness and helplessness. The inflow of money creates greater pressure on family bonds. The outcomes are psychological pathologies and alcoholism, common among displaced populations.

    * Arguably the most culpable aspect of state-induced impoverishment of displaced populations is the phenomenon of multiple displacements. It has been documented, for instance, that as a direct result of the lack of co-ordination between the multiplicity of irrigation, thermal power and coal-mining agencies in Singrauli, most oustees have been displaced at least twice, and some three or four times in a matter of two or three decades.

    * A frequently neglected, but extremely serious problem, is the unwillingness of host populations to accept resettled oustees in their midst.

    * The vast majority of tribal people displaced by big projects face danger of extinction as traditionally they depend more on natural resources. They are pushed inexorably into a vortex of increasing assetlessness, unemployment, debt-bondage and hunger.

    * Any loss of access to traditional sources of livelihood - land, forest, sea, river, pasture, cattle or saltpan land - marginalizes women on the labour market. Women not only suffered in terms of health and nutrition, they also lost the capacity to provide a secure future for their children.

    * Another extremely vulnerable group of oustees is oustees without land, including landless agricultural workers. The only legal reparation to displaced persons recognised by the statutes in India is compensation for loss of assets that are compulsorily acquired by the state for what the state designates as a `public purpose'. However a landless family dependent on the acquired land for their livelihood may be most severely pauperised by the displacement because it loses its only source of economic survival. However, the law and most ehabilitation policies still do not recognise this profound vulnerability.

**page**

Opposition to Big Dams: Lessons for Policy

    * Even before Independence, there were instances of anti-dam struggles such as the one led by Senapati Bapat in opposition to the Mulshi hydroelectric project in the Western Ghats.

    * The first large river valley project in India, Hirakud, resulted in widespread protests in 1946 after the initial notifications. People also launched a struggle against the Rihand project in 1963-64. However, such early protests could not be sustained, partly because of their failure to attract larger alliances, under the overwhelming influence of the nationalist rhetoric of nation-building that accompanied the construction of large dams in India.

    * The success of the mobilisation against the Silent Valley project, resulting in the decision to shelve the project in 1983, led to a new phase in the history of resistance to big dams in India.

    * Other notable early struggles against big dams were local movements opposed to the Suvarnarekha, Koel Karo and Srisailam projects.

    * The most celebrated protest movement against big dams so far has centred around the mega Sardar Sarovar Project on the river Narmada. A number of protest groups gathered under the leadership of activist Medha Patkar and in 1988, local resistance organisations federated into a common platform known as the Narmada Bachao Andolan (Save the Narmada Movement).

    * A significant development has been the revival of struggles by people displaced by dams completed years ago, such as on the Bargi (completed 1990), Koyna (1964), Tawa (1975) and Mahi-Kadana (1978). We have already noted the success at Bargi and Tawa to secure fishing rights for cooperative societies of oustees in the dam reservoirs.

    * By ensuring that these voices are heard, these movements have succeeded in compelling governments, both central and state, and powerful funding agencies like the World Bank, to rethink their policies on displacement and rehabilitation.

    * Opponents of big dams have argued that big dams are part of a development strategy that intrinsically impoverishes and disempowers the poor. The opponents to big dams in India have also challenged the dominant orthodoxy that development,especially state-induced development, by necessity entails the human costs of displacement or involuntary resettlement.

    * Another important issue in the debate around big dams in India is the question of whether the state should retain the power to compulsorily acquire private land for development projects without the consent of the owner or owners of such land.

    * The next issue in the debate is the nature and extent of state responsibility for the rehabilitation of the displaced. It is chiefly under the impact of people's movements, supported by painstaking empirical social science research, that the state has in recent times acknowledged that its responsibility for rehabilitation to extend beyond the payment of market value for compulsorily acquired assets. However, the state in India has continued to resist the laying down of the nature of its precise responsibilities for rehabilitation in the form of even a comprehensive policy statement, let alone legislating the right to rehabilitation as a legally enforceable right.

Displacement and Rehabilitation: Suggested Directions for Policy

    * Objectives of any just and equitable law and policy dealing with the colossal social and human impacts of big dams cannot be limited only to minimising the trauma of displacement, and ensuring the just resettlement of the victims of displacement. It must incorporate the objective to end, or severely curtail, displacement itself, to no longer accept state-induced involuntary resettlement as an inevitable cost of all development projects. It must enable people to effectively challenge as equal partners, a form of development which takes for granted the inevitability of displacement.

    * It is incumbent upon the government before the launching of the project to justify that in the light of various technical and locational options, this is the least displacing alternative available. This claim should also be justiciable.

    * It is imperative that the population likely to be affected by the acquisition be involved in the process from the time that decisions are sought to be made about where a project is to be located. They should be given full information to help them participate in decisions about whether the stated purpose is a public purpose; to explore options which may be less displacing; to work out the costs it involves for them; ando find out how they may gain from the process of change that the acquisition will bring.

    * Another institutional mechanism to limit displacement is to ensure that in the planning of any project the social and human costs are more accurately assessed and internalised in the cost-benefit analysis of the project.

Compensation, Resettlement and Rehabilitation

    * The policy of rehabilitation must contain safeguards for detailed advance planning for rehabilitation.

    * All persons whose source of livelihood, place of residence or other property is affected notwithstanding the legal status enjoyed by them in relation to the concerned location of the resource base for their livelihood and subsistence, shall be deemed to be project affected persons (PAPs).

    * If the guiding principle of rehabilitation is that displaced persons should become better off than they were in the past, one proviso that needs to be firmly embedded in the law is that compensation must be paid not at market but at replacement value.

    * The second guiding principle for assessment and payment of compensation should be that it is not only the loss of assets but also, far more significantly, the loss of livelihoods that must be compensated.

    * A third guiding principle is that any displaced person must be fully compensated before displacement from land, house or livelihood is executed.

    * If the objectives of rehabilitation of persons displaced as a result of large dams is to ensure that they are not only better off, but are direct project beneficiaries, then at the heart of such a strategy must be a policy of replacing agricultural land and agriculture-based livelihoods with alternate agricultural land of viable size and productivity and with appropriate complements of credit and input assistance.

    * Simultaneously, the scope for complementary non land-based livelihoods should also be explored along with land-based strategies. One such livelihood opportunity that is always created as a by-product of any large dam project is fresh-water fishing in the large reservoir.

    * The resettlement sites for displaced tribal families should be selected with great care and in consultation with the traditional/elected leaders or representatives of the displaced families as well as host populations, and established local NGOs. Efforts should be made to ensure that all tribal families of ousted villages are resettled together in a particular area.

    * Women headed households or single women should not be discriminated against in eligibility for benefits.

    * Still we are left with the most difficult issue of displaced persons from older dams. It has been estimated that as many as 3 out of every 4 persons displaced by big dams in India have been rendered worse off than they were before. Some reparation must be made, some attempt to rebuild so many millions of broken lives.

The study titled Environment of Land Diversion, Displacement and Rehabilitation: A Study of Indian SEZs, http://www.mse.ac.in/Frontier/w23%20Verma.pdf show:

    * India has adopted the policy of promoting the Special Economic Zones (SEZs) for faster industrial development. It needs about 50,000 hectares of agricultural land for SEZs and 1.49 lakh hectares for all projects which include also industrial, mining, irrigation and infrastructural projects.

    * Farmers in many parts of the country are resisting for land diversion and acquisition for these purposes.

    * Land especially agricultural land in India, is a very delicate subject and has been an emotional issue ever since the Zamindari days. Land is livelihood of millions of people. Not only the immediate owners of the land are affected because of land shifting, but also share-croppers or daily wage labourers who forgo their living through a scant, but reasonably reliable source of income.

    * While acquiring the land the government agency normally fixes the market value of land much below the prevailing rate in the open market.

    * India ratified the ILO Indigenous and Tribal Populations Convention, 1957 in 1958. This Convention deals primarily with the protection and integration of indigenous, tribal and semi-tribal groups. The Convention provides that where as an exceptional measure tribal groups are removed from their land they should be provided with lands of quality at least equal to that of the lands previously occupied by them. It goes on to provide that they should be compensated for any "resulting injury or loss".

    * The UN Guiding Principles on Internally Displaced Persons, 1998 is meant to serve as an international standard to guide governments as well as international humanitarian and development agencies in providing assistance and protection to IDPs. They provide protection against arbitrary displacement, offer a basis for protection and assistance during displacement, and set forth guarantees for safe return, resettlement and reintegration.

    * The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 of India is the primary legislation that provides for acquisition of land. But this Act has been criticized "for considering land only as a commodity generating income". However, when a family is settled on a piece of land not only does it earn its livelihood from it but it also has a whole social network.

    * The Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill, 2007 puts provisions for "rehabilitation and resettlement of persons affected by acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894" or due to any other legislation by the Central or State governments or involuntary displacement due to any other reason. The Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 6 December 2007 and has since been referred to the Standing Committee on Rural Development.

    * National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2007 came in order to solve issues arising out of policies of economic liberalization/de-regularization. The NRRP, 2007 has come into force from Oct. 2007. The new policy is applicable to all affected persons and families whose land, property or livelihood are adversely affected by land acquisition or by involuntary displacement of a permanent nature due to any other reason.

    * Now, by and large there is unanimity that no development can be accepted at the cost of social equity. Land acquisition needs total reform and rehabilitation package. Land owners, should get adequate compensation of their land.

According to the study titled: Large Dam Projects and Displacement in India, http://www.sandrp.in/dams/Displac_largedams.pdf:

    * The government of India does not have figures of people displaced by large dams. This fact is the biggest sign of the fact that displacement and resettlement of people is the least concern of large dam builders.

    * India is the third largest dam builder country in the world. It now has over 3600 large dams and over 700 more under construction.

    * The large dams are the single largest cause of displacement in India.

    * A World Bank review of the status of displacement and rehabilitation has shown that the displacement of as many as 0.6 million people across 192 projects had not been accounted for in project planning. In at least one instance, the number of people actually displaced was seven times the number stated in the project documents.

    * Often only reservoir displacement is taken into account. Whereas Large dam projects can displace people in a number of ways including due to colonies, due to canals, downstream impacts, catchment area treatment, compensatory afforestation, secondary displacement (at resettlement colonies, for example) and due to related conservation schemes like sanctuaries and national parks.

    * Displacement due to dams in India has been variously estimated. Fernandes, Das & Rao (1989) claimed that Indians displaced by dam projects numbered 21 million.

    * Available estimates of people displaced by large and medium dams in India show that the 140 dams for which such figures are available, have displaced over 4.4 million people.

The study titled Right to displace, but no duty to rehabilitate (A critique of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill, 2007).
http://www.indiatogether.org/2008/jan/law-resettle.htm show:

    * The bill seems to be based on the premise that the acquiring land for a 'public purpose' is a right by the state under its powers of eminent domain, but it accepts no duty to resettle and rehabilitate all the affected citizens. Instead, rehabilitation is presented as an act of benevolence.

    * The Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill, 2007 seeks to "provide for the rehabilitation and resettlement of persons affected by the acquisition of land for projects of public purpose or involuntary displacement due to any other reason".

    * The bill came at a time when concerted efforts were about to begin made by both the central and state governments to increase economic activity through the deployment of domestic and foreign private capital on a gigantic scale in new infrastructure and industry.

    * The history of large scale land acquisition and consequent displacement goes back to the 1950s, when the newly independent republic embarked on large state owned projects for irrigation, power, steel and heavy engineering that were meant to occupy the 'towering heights of the economy'.

    * Land for even such gigantic projects was (and continues to be) acquired using the coercive powers provided by the colonial Land Acquisition Act. It narrowly defined persons affected by an acquisition to be either land owners or occupiers (tenants), and limited compensation to purely monetary terms.

    * Even those who were compensated monetarily were hard put to replace their lost land assets and regain their means of livelihood. In the absence of any rehabilitation plan, people displaced by Hirakud dam project occupied whatever open lands they could locate. These lands were not legally theirs, making them vulnerable to constant harassment by officials.

    * The Narmada Sardar Sarovar project is illustrative of how things have changed over the last six decades. Struggle against displacement by the PAPs led by Narmada Bachao Andolan contributed immensely to change the discourse of the development and displacement.

    * But the experience of the Sardar Sarovar and many other projects over the last 60 years reveals the inadequacy of R&R policy - at the project, company, state or even national level- to address the legal neglect of displacement and the rights of the affected people, particularly those without land or tenancy.

    * These are some of the issues that came under debate as the Rehabilitation and Resettlement bill 2007 was introduced.

    * The bill prescribes conditions for project affected families to qualify as beneficiaries and makes the benefits themselves conditional on external circumstances.

    * Under the provisions of the bill, an area will be notified as an 'affected area' "where the appropriate Government is of the opinion that there is likely to be involuntary displacement of four hundred or more families en masse in plain areas" (the number is less for hilly and tribal areas).

    * Thus the opinion of the Government on the scale of the displacement will decide if there will be planned R&R of the displaced.

    * There are many other conditions attached to the benefits.

    * While acquiring land for a 'public purpose', with its attendant displacement and denial of livelihood, is claimed as a right of the state under its powers of eminent domain, the R&R bill does not accept that it is the unconditional duty of the state to resettle and rehabilitate all the affected citizens so that they are able to maintain, if not improve, their current standard of living.

**page**

Category A projects are:

    * Dams and reservoirs;

    * Forestry production projects;

    * Industrial plants (large-scale) and industrial estates;

    * Irrigation, drainage, and flood control (large-scale);

    * Land clearance and levelling;

    * Mineral development (including oil and gas);

    * Port and harbour development;

    * Reclamation and new land development;

    * Resettlement and all projects with potentially major impacts on people;

    * River basin development;

    * Thermal and hydropower development; and

    * Manufacture, transportation, and use of pesticides or other hazardous and/or toxic materials.

Category B projects are:

    * Agro-industries (small-scale);

    * Electrical transmission;

    * Aquaculture and mariculture;

    * Irrigation and drainage (small-scale);

    * Renewable energy;

    * Rural electrification;

    * Tourism;

    * Rural water supply and sanitation;

    * Watershed projects (management or rehabilitation); and

    * Rehabilitation, maintenance, and upgrading projects (small-scale).

Category C projects might be:

    * Education,

    * Family planning,

    * Health,

    * Nutrition,

    * Institutional development,

    * Technical assistance, and

    * Most human resource projects.

**page**

Imagining a Post-Development Era? Critical thought, Development and Social Movements by Arturo Escobar is a paper, which gives a fair idea of debates on developments till 1960s and afterwards. This is an important reading for a deeper understanding of evolution of concepts of developments in last few decades. As there is a cause and effect relationship between development projects and displacement, therefore while looking into the issue of displacement it is desirable to have an understanding of this whole debate on development.

Main Points:

    * Nowadays it has become difficult to talk about development with the same confidence and encompassing scope with which intellectuals and activists spoke about these vital matters in the past decades. Now there are differing views. When one speaks about development, other voices emphasize on the "crisis of development". The "new social actors" and "new social movements" are raising fundamental questions on the conventional sense of development.

    * To examine development as discourse requires understanding why so many countries started to see themselves as underdeveloped, and, how "to develop" became for them a fundamental problem.

    * In the previous period, from the early post-War years to the end of the 1970s, development was chiefly a matter of capital, technology, and education and the appropriate policy and planning mechanisms to successfully combine these elements.

    * Resistance, on the other hand, was primarily a class issue and a question of imperialism. Nowadays, even imperialism and class are thought to be the object of innumerable mediations. Now we come across new ways of thinking on these issues, especially in relation to social movements.

    * With the emergence of the new critique it is being argued that development has been an invention and strategy produced by the "First World" about the "underdevelopment" of the "Third World." Largely, it has been an instrument of economic control over the physical and social reality of much of Asia, Africa and Latin America.

    * These schools of thought now are now advocating for "alternatives to development" that needs transformation of the notions of development, modernity and the economy.

    * The number of scholars in the Third World says that rather than searching for development alternatives, there is a need to go for the "alternatives to development," that is, a rejection of the entire earlier paradigm.

    * In the Third World the process of needs interpretation and satisfaction is inextricably linked to the development apparatus. The "basic human needs" strategy, pushed by the World Bank and adopted by most international agencies, has played a crucial role in this regard. However, the critics say that this strategy is based on a liberal human rights discourse and on the rational, scientific assessment and measurement of "needs"; lacking a significant link to people's everyday experience, and "basic human needs" discourse does not foster greater political participation.

    * This paper argues that the possibility for redefining development rests largely with the action of social movements. Though the paper in most of its parts has discussed the Latin American experiences, it has significance for whole Third World.

The main provisions under Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act (MMDR Act) are as follows:
http://mines.gov.in/policy/noticeapril.pdf
http://www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/draft/Draft%20Mines%20and%20Minerals%20Bill_31%20March%202010.pdf

A background and critique:
http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2714/stories/20100716271402500.htm

    * The 1957 Act has outlived its utility despite the several amendments made to it up to 1999. The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation Act, 1957, came into force at a time when governments required much discretionary power to regulate a nascent mining sector. The rise of the market economy in the early 1990s brought about a fundamental change in the government's attitude to mining.

    * The National Mineral Policy, 1993, recognised the need to encourage private investment, including foreign direct investment (FDI), and to attract state-of-the-art technology in the mineral sector.

    * Mining is a three-stage operation, involving regional exploration, detailed exploration, and actual mining.

    * Procedural delay was identified as one of the impediments in encouraging the flow of private investment and in the introduction of high-end technology for exploration and mining. The Anwarul Hoda Committee, constituted by the Planning Commission in 2005, in its report submitted in 2006 made specific recommendations on the legal framework to avoid procedural delay.

    * The New Mining Policy (NMP) 2008, while reflecting these recommendations, also sought to develop a sustainable framework for optimum utilisation of mineral resources for industrial growth and for improving the life of people living in the mining areas.

    * The proposed Act makes significant departures from the existing Act in areas that were seen as instances of micromanagement.

    * As per the proposed Act, the union Ministry for mines and minerals give up its "prior approval" power in grant of concessions for minerals in Part C of the First Schedule. In the proposed Act, Part C includes 74 major minerals, while Part A includes coal and lignite and Part B atomic minerals. Part C of the First Schedule of the existing Act includes only 10 metallic and non-metallic minerals.

    * The proposed Act envisages the setting up of a national mining tribunal, which can check independently decisions as also indecision and delays. It gives more teeth to the Indian Bureau of Mines to regulate the mining plan and mine closure and empowers the Central government to enforce disclosure through databases and websites.

    * The draft Bill allows the setting up of a national mineral royalty commission with State governments as members, for progressive solutions for revenue-sharing through royalty.

    * The proposed Act provides for stringent measures to prevent illegal mining. It empowers State governments to detect, prevent and prosecute cases of illegal mining, set up special courts to try such cases and declare those convicted as ineligible for grant of mining concessions.

    * One of the consistent demands of the steel industry has been the reservation of mineral-bearing areas for public sector undertakings. The proposed Act rejects this demand, consistent with the Hoda Committee's recommendation that reservation goes against the principles of providing a level playing field.

    * The draft Bill guarantees assured annuity to the local population as a percentage of profits (26 per cent) earned by the miner, resettlement and rehabilitation of the local population through employment and skill enhancement.

    * It also provides for compulsory consultation with gram sabha/district panchayats in tribal areas before notification of the area for grant of concessions, and preference to tribal cooperatives in the grant of concessions over small deposits.

According to a report named SEZs and land acquisition FACTSHEET FOR AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL ECONOMIC POLICY Prepared by Citizens' Research Collective
http://www.sacw.net/Nation/sezland_eng.pdf

SEZ - DISPLACEMENT AND LOSS OF LIVELIHOODS

    * Estimates show that close to 114,000 farming households (each household on an average comprising five members) and an additional 82,000 farm worker families who are dependent upon these farms for their livelihoods, will be displaced.

    * In other words, at least 10 lakh (1,000,000) people who primarily depend upon agriculture for their survival will face eviction. Experts calculate that the total loss of income to the farming and the farm worker families is at least Rs. 212 crores a year.

    * This does not include other income lost (for instance of artisans) due to the demise of local rural economies. The government promises ‘humane' displacement followed by relief and rehabilitation.

    * However, the historical record does not offer any room for hope on this count: an estimated 40 million people (of which nearly 40% are Adivasis and 25% Dalits) have lost their land since 1950 on account of displacement due to large development projects. At least 75% of them still await rehabilitation.

    * Almost 80% of the agricultural population owns only about 17% of the total agriculture land, making them near landless farmers. Far more families and communities depend on a piece of land (for work, grazing) than those who simply own it. However, compensation is being discussed only for those who hold titles to land. No compensation has been planned for those who don't.

LOSS OF PUBLIC REVENUE

    * Exemptions from customs duties, income tax, sales tax, excise duties and service tax (even on luxury hotel facilities, shopping malls, health clubs and recreation centres) given to SEZs, the Finance ministry estimates a loss of Rs.1,60,000 crore till 2010 in revenue. (The Ministry has also asked for capping the number of SEZs at 100.

    * Finance Minister P. Chidambaram wrote to Cabinet colleagues saying: "SEZs per se will distort land, capital, and labour cost, which will encourage relocation or shifting of industries in clever ways that can't be stopped. This will be further aggravated by the proliferation of a large number of SEZs in and around metros.")

    * The foregone tax revenue every year is five times the annual allocation for the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme and is enough to feed each year 55 million people who go to bed hungry every day.

    * Furthermore, given the concessions on import duties (not merely for the investors who will produce exportable items but also for the developer, who will not), there are likely to be foreign exchange losses (rather than gains).

    * For the five year period ending 1996-97 the foreign exchange outgo on imports made by units in SEZs and the customs duty forgone amounted to Rs.16461.58 crore against which exports of only Rs.13563.87 crore were reported.

    * Moreover, these zones are exempt from sales tax, octroi, mandi tax etc on the supply of the goods from the Domestic Tariff Area (rest of India).