TEXT :
16.32 hrs.
MR. CHAIRMAN : Now, we will take up items 11 and 12 together.
1634 hours
SHRI V.V. RAGHAVAN (TRICHUR): Madam, Chairperson, I beg to move:
"That this House disapproves of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Ordinance, 1999 (No.5 of 1999) promulgated by the President on 11th January, 1999."
There is a provision in our Constitution to Promulgate Ordinance in Extraordinary CircumstanceThis provision is being misused by the Government. It is a fraud on our Constitution. Legislations have very great importance. How can this Government promulgate an Ordinance, especially when the Ordinance intends to repeal what is considered to be a model Urban Land Ceiling Act? I can understand the anxiety of the Government to help the real estate people. The Ordinance intends to help only the real estate magnates. Repealing of this Act cannot solve the housing problem, because the housing problem is there not because of the Urban Land Ceiling Act. If you repeal the Urban Land Ceiling Act and allow the real estate people to get hold of the land in the cities and towns, I have no doubt that the real estate people will exploit and loot our people. Real estate people have already captured almost the entire housing sector in the big cities. When the Urban Land Ceiling Act was there, there was a guarantee for the common people and the middle class that they would get a piece of land. If you repeal this Act, this means the poor people and the middle class would not be able to own a piece of land in cities. If the ceiling is repealed, the whole of the land available in cities will be captured by the real estate people.
To solve our housing problem, the Government has to think otherwise and not think in terms of repealing the Urban land (Ceiling) Act. The Government should come forward to take hold of all the available land in the cities and corporations and have a Housing project. I have no objection even for private sector participation but allowing them to withhold the land available within the cities by repealing the Urban Land (Ceiling) Act is a measure which cannot be agreed upon. The fact that the Government has implemented the measure by an Ordinance, I should say, is a crime against the people. Is it a legislation which is to be implemented by an Ordinance?
The Government certainly has a right to promulgate Ordinance in an extraordinary circumstance. Repealing the Urban Land (Ceiling) Act by an Ordinance, to put it mildly, is a fraud on our Constitution. When the makers of the Constitution incorporated this provision of promulgating Ordinance by the Executive, they did not visualise that such legislations will also be brought by an Ordinance. The Executive is misusing its power by getting away with the Urban Land (Ceiling) Act by issuing an Ordinance. The Executive is by-passing the right of Parliament and the right of the Members of Parliament to threadbare examine and scrutinise the legislations brought forward by it.
The Government has now come with a fait accompli. It has already been repealed and the Government is implementing the programme. What can the Treasury Benches now do? I really sympathise them. This legislation is a fait accompli. Since the Government has implemented it and gone further with it, can we change it now? If at all we are able to change it, our friends will not allow us to do so because of their obligation to the Treasury Benches. How can the Government put the House in such an embarrassing situation? Is it a routine legislative process? In a Parliamentary democracy one should not by-pass the Parliament. It was such an important and vital Act which our country had with the help of which the middle class people had some chance to get a piece of land in the cities but
nnow the Government is depriving them of this opportunity. How can it be justified? By imposing such a legislation the Government is putting this august House in an embarrassing position. Madam, this kind of an act by the Executive should be resisted by this august House. The Government cannot impose such a legislation on us. Not only this, a number of other important legislations involving Constitutional issues, have been imposed on us by way of Ordinances.
We have many ordinances now-a-days. In this Session how many Ordinances are to be accepted by us? They are not one or two or three but many. All the legislations before us are implemented through Ordinances before the House is convened. Now, they are asking us to pass them. Madam, whatever be the housing problem now prevailing in our cities, that housing problem could not be solved by such an Act and by depriving the common people their right of getting a piece of land at a reasonable price. That right is being stolen now. That is the meaning of repealing the Urban Land Ceiling Act.
The Government is going further. They are talking of agrarian reforms. Even on that the Government is thinking of doing away with the ceiling Acts in rural areas. They want to amalgamate the lands and give the land to big companies. In continuation of this Urban Land Ceiling Act, they are extending it to the whole of India, thus, depriving the common masses their right for a piece of land. Whatever be the attractive projects of housing, this kind of Act is anti-people. You have no right at all to implement it by Ordinance. Without the approval of Parliament and without giving us a chance to scrutinise it and without giving us an opportunity to express our opinion in this august House, bringing Acts like this, fait accompli imposing such Acts on us, is not a right thing to do.
I appeal to the august House just to point out to them and just to ask them that these kinds of Executive steps are against the Parliamentary practices and the rights of Parliament. For that sake, point it out on that merit. If the Executive goes on to bring such Ordinances and impose such vital Acts on us, fait accompli, that would be against the Parliamentary practices. Our rights will be curbed. So, please disapprove this Ordinance just to point out to the Executive that we are not here to approve all the acts which they do against the spirit of the Constitution. Even though there is a provision in the Constitution, they are acting against the spirit of the Constitution. So, my humble request to all the Members is to disapprove this Ordinance.(ends)
"That the Bill to repeal the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, be taken into consideration."
Madam, first of all, I must very profusely apologise to you and to all the Members of the House for being absent at the time when this item was called out. I have no excuse save and except to say that an appointment had been fixed very long ago with the hon. the Deputy Prime Minister of England at 4.00 p.m. today in my office and it was impossible to cancel that appointment because a huge delegation was accompanying the hon. the Deputy Prime Minister.
They have come at our invitation to assist us in some of the housing projects, in some of the water clearance and pollution removal projects and other kinds of infrastructural projects in which we are vitally interested and in which we are short of our own capital and we need capital assistance from abroad. Kindly do pardon me, but in any event I hope I have not wasted any time of the House because both these items are taken up together.
I think the hon. Member's attack has been mainly on why this measure was brought in the shape of an ordinance and, according to him, why was parliamentary scrutiny eliminated in the process. Madam, for the last fifty years, I have myself been a student of the Constitution and I have always proudly proclaimed that I consider myself a worthy disciple of late Dr. Ambedkar. I have tried to understand not merely the text of the Constitution but what the hon. Member calls the spirit of the Constitution. It is the spirit of the Constitution which I have imbibed over the years and if the hon. Member would take the trouble of looking into my past speeches either in this House or in the other House, he may find that I have always complained of the misuse of ordinance making power by the executive almost in the same vain in which the hon. Member has spoken just now. While I appreciate what he has said and endorse fully that an ordinance must be resorted to in very extreme circumstances of urgency, I plead not guilty to the charge of having violated the spirit of the Constitution in this case because I believe that an ordinance was an obsolute necessity and it would have caused tremendous injury to public interest if the ordinance had not been passed.
I will now proceed to explain but while I proceed to explain why an ordinance was imperated, I will have to explain my own perception of why this law is necessary and why this law was necessary particularly on the date on which we passed this ordinance. The two items therefore are inevitably inextricably intertwined and they have to be discussed together. Therefore, with your permission and with the permission of the House, I also move that the Bill be taken into consideration and I seek the leave of this hon. House that the Bill may be taken into consideration so that I can speak on both, the disapproval of the Resolution as well as the merits of the legislation which I am commending that the hon.House might pass.
Madam, the Bill had already been introduced. I am assuming that the leave is granted by the House to consider the Bill so that I may deal with both the items together.
First of all, hon. Members may kindly realise that the law which we are seeking to repeal is a law pith and substance of which in constitutional language is outside the legislative jurisdiction of the Central Parliament. The law deals with land, the use of land, the holding of land, the purposes for which the land has to be used and land is, under the Constitution, wholly and exclusively a State subject. It is neither in the Central List nor in the Concurrent List.
This legislation was passed by Parliament not because Parliament had the jurisdiction to do so but it was passed under a special Article of the Constitution under which the Centre can legislate if two or more States request the Centre to pass a legislation on a particular topic on which they want uniform legislation to be introduced.
Madam, my understanding of the Constitution and the constitutional spirit of which the hon. Member spoke, tells me one thing that if two or more States require that the Centre should legislate, and the Centre proceeds to legislate, equally it is the moral, the political and to my mind, the constitutional obligation of the Centre to repeal that law when two or more States ask that the law be repealed. In fact, we have no option. The option will consist in defining the will of those who have actual jurisdiction over the subject matter of this law. When two or more States want the autonomy to be restored to them, we are bound to restore it to them, and the repeal of this law by this House is not going to bring about the repeal of this law in any State which chooses to continue the existence of this law. The repeal of this law today by the Parliament or the repeal of the law by the Ordinance has only one small territorial effect and that the repeal becomes effective in the Union Territories and it becomes effective only in those States which, hereafter, pass what the Article of the Constitution calls, an "Adoption Resolution."...(Interruptions)
SHRI VARKALA RADHAKRISHNAN: Shri Ram Jethmalani, will you yield for a moment? I will put only one question...(Interruptions)
SHRI RAM JETHMALANI: I will always yield to you. I am sitting down. Otherwise, you cannot speak...(Interruptions)
SHRI VARKALA RADHAKRISHNAN : When I speak for democracy, I am only putting a very small question...(Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN : Please listen to him.
... (Interruptions)
SHRI RAM JETHMALANI: Shri Radhakrishnan, I want to yield. Will you allow me to sit down?...(Interruptions)
SHRI VARKALA RADHAKRISHNAN : Madam, the hon. Minister has been elaborating about the spirit of the Constitution. I fully appreciate his point. Here, the question is only two small States in India, Haryana and Punjab, have passed it. None of the States like Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal and Bihar have passed any Resolution. Only two small States and the Union Territory for which an Ordinance was issued have passed it. If an Ordinance is issued, it should be applicable to at least some two major States. That is not available in the instant case. When the Minister speaks about federalism and the spirit of the Constitution, it would have been better had two or three major States in India passed a Resolution and asked the Central Government to issue an Ordinance. In this case, he has not followed that principle. On the basis of a Resolution passed by two States, and that too on a matter which is exclusively within the right of the States, that he is legislating...(Interruptions)
SHRI RAM JETHMALANI: Now, have I your permission to get up?...(Interruptions)
SHRI VARKALA RADHAKRISHNAN : No. That comes within the jurisdiction of the Chair. I agree with your knowledge...(Interruptions) But I am pained to say that it is against the letter and spirit of the Constitution...(Interruptions)
SHRI N.N. KRISHNADAS (PALAKKAD): Shri Ram Jethmalani, you can get up now!...(Interruptions)
SHRI RAM JETHMALANI: How graceful can you be in according such a permission!...(Interruptions) It is very nice.
Madam, in the eye of the Constitution and in my own eyes, there are no major States, there are no minor States...(Interruptions)
SHRI VARKALA RADHAKRISHNAN : It is a question of population...(Interruptions)
SHRI RAM JETHMALANI: There is no question of population. The original Article which enables this legislation to be passed by the Centre does not say that two big States should request the Centre. Any two States make a request and the Central Parliament acquires the jurisdiction to legislate on that subject. If two minor States could have originally asked for it, the two minor States will have the right to ask for it...(Interruptions)
SHRI ANIL BASU (ARAMBAGH): Shri Jethmalani, morally this is not correct. But logically you are correct. This is a rape of the Constitution...(Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shri Anil Basu, please do not disturb him. You have all the time to make your submission.
SHRI RAM JETHMALANI: If I am logically correct, then I am correct on all scores...(Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Please do not interrupt like this. Please let him have his say.
SHRI RAM JETHMALANI: The second aspect of the matter which the hon. Members keep forgetting is that this repeal does not affect the large majority of people that you have in mind. Those States have still to pass an adoption Resolution. We are only restoring to them their original autonomy and jurisdiction which have been forfeited by their initial request.
SHRI V.V. RAGHAVAN (TRICHUR): What about Delhi?
SHRI RAM JETHMALANI: In Delhi, it will come into effect. There is no opposition in Delhi. In Delhi, I am entitled to legislate directly and I am legislating directly because in Delhi land has not been transferred.
Now, when you bear in mind the absolutely limited objective of this repeal that we are restoring autonomy leaving it to every State to decide the future of this law in their own State. For example, I had a very strong letter written to me by the Chief Minister of Bihar and I wrote a letter to the lady, explained to her that, `Lady, if you are in love with this law, this law will remain in your State. Who am I to take it away from your State?' But some day, when other States come to adopt it and when they see the development of housing and when they see how the poor people are being served by the repeal of this law, then I am quite sure that those who are opposed to it and are prepared to characterise it today as anti-people will come and thank me and say that this is the first thing that had happened in the last 50 years in favour of poor people of this country.
SHRI V. DHANANJAYA KUMAR (MANGALORE): Mr. Minister, kindly enlighten the House as to how far it is implemented in Kerala. You may please enlighten the House because our friends have been opposing it vehemently. We would like to know as to how far it is implemented in Kerala. ... (Interruptions) All right, in West Bengal also? ... (Interruptions)
SHRI RAM JETHMALANI: Madam, early last year, one of the Members from my party had moved a Resolution. The Resolution said that in the opinion of this House the Government should have a Housing Policy. I would have just got up and told the hon. Member and requested him to withdraw that Resolution by telling him that the Government is considering the Housing Policy and the Housing Policy will be put before Parliament for consideration and close scrutiny in the near future. But I did not take that step. I encouraged the hon. Member to go ahead with his Resolution because I wanted every section of this House to have an opportunity to explain their attitude to this legislation and the problem of housing in general, which is unfortunately facing the country.
This debate went on before this House on at least four different occasions and I am very glad that three Members who have now signed the disapproval Resolution had participated even on that occasion in the debate. Now, I want particularly to mention about my great friend, Shri Varkala Radhakrishnan for whom I have the greatest respect. He also claims that he has some respect for me but he rarely shows it.
SHRI VARKALA RADHAKRISHNAN : I am sorry that I always show respect to you.
SHRI N.N. KRISHNADAS : He is sorry for that.
SHRI RAM JETHMALANI: Madam, I want to remind the hon. Member what he said on that occasion. What he had said? What is the purpose? Is it to ruin the poor? No land was distributed to the poor people. The slum area people did not get any house and they did not get any allotment of land. The entire land was allotted to the rich people.
SHRI MOHAN SINGH : What does it mean?
SHRI RAM JETHMALANI: Mr. Mohan Singh, I am old but I am not a fool.
What that means is that in spite of the existence of the Urban Land Ceiling Act on the Statute Book from 1976 onwards, no land was distributed to the poor people. The slum area people did not get any house. They did not get any allotment of land. The entire land was allotted to the rich people. By repealing this law, I want to annul this sorry state of affairs which have existed because of that Act.