Facing resistance to land acquisition for industrial and infrastructure projects, the Odisha government has enhanced monetary assistance for project-affected families under its Resettlement and Rehabilitation (R&R) Policy, but the revision is unlikely to address growing concerns, as landowners termed the compensation inadequate.

 

The revised provisions of the policy, which will remain applicable until March 31, 2028, increase assistance across several rehabilitation categories, including self-relocation outside the resettlement habitat, housing construction, agricultural land, maintenance, transportation and temporary shelters.

 

According to a resolution issued by the Revenue and Disaster Management Department, self-relocation assistance outside rehabilitation colonies has been increased from ₹1,13,128 to ₹1,16,550, while housing construction assistance has risen from ₹3,39,383 to ₹3,49,650.

  

The monthly maintenance allowance has been raised from ₹4,525 to ₹4,662 and assistance for temporary sheds from ₹22,626 to ₹23,310. Transportation assistance has also been increased from ₹4,525 to ₹4,662.

 

For agricultural land, the grant for irrigated land has been increased from ₹2,26,255 an acre to ₹2,33,100, while assistance for non-irrigated land has risen from ₹1,13,128 to ₹1,16,550 an acre.

 

The government has also revised the one-time financial assistance in lieu of employment for displaced families. For industrial projects, the assistance has been fixed at ₹11,65,500 for Category I, ₹6,99,300 for Category II, ₹4,66,200 for Category III, and ₹2,33,100 for Categories IV and V. The same rates have been prescribed for families displaced by mining projects, with Categories IV, V and VI covered under the lowest slab.

 

The relatively modest increase in rehabilitation grants is unlikely to resolve the larger problem of acquiring private land and handing it over to project proponents within the promised timelines.

 

Landowners in project-affected regions argued that the assistance remained small compared with the sharp rise in land values and the long-term livelihoods they stood to lose.

 

“The market value of the land is two to three times what the government is offering. In some cases, especially in suburban and urban areas, the land cost is five to 10 times the government rate. An increase of ₹3,422 in self-rehabilitation assistance or ₹6,845 per acre for irrigated agricultural land, for instance, is inadequate for a family losing land that represents its principal productive asset,” said Gobinda Naik from Rayagada district.

 

Even as Odisha has ambitious plans for industrialisation, mining, ports, petrochemicals, highways, railways and other infrastructure, land remains the critical bottleneck. The experience of several large projects shows that acquiring land and handing it over without prolonged disputes can take years.

 

Land acquisition continues to be a problem in both greenfield and brownfield investments. Whether it is a steel plant, aluminium refinery, mine, tourism project, port, airport or new railway line, projects face prolonged delays because local communities’ economic dependence on their land, agriculture and forest resources makes acquisition particularly sensitive.

 

Officials said the latest R&R revision was an attempt to make the rehabilitation component more responsive to changing costs. “The Revenue Department has issued specific directions for streamlining land acquisition at the district level to ensure timely completion of projects, while a special land acquisition cell has been opened in every district to address the grievances of land losers,” an official said.

 

But land losers questioned whether the increments adequately reflected the economic value of the land being surrendered. They demanded a rehabilitation package that protected their long-term livelihoods and gave them a meaningful stake in the economic activity made possible by their land.

 

Narendra Mohanty, state convenor of the National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM), said people opposed land acquisition because land was not merely a physical asset for many affected families but their primary source of livelihood and economic security.

 

“The value of agricultural land cannot be assessed only in monetary terms, as its loss also means losing a dependable source of income and a means of sustenance for generations. Similarly, the economic, social and environmental costs associated with the diversion of forest land for industrial and infrastructure projects cannot be fully compensated,” Mohanty pointed out.