Land needed for mining, dams and other large-scale projects is acquired mostly from Adivasis, hill dwellers and rural communities. The displaced persons are paid monetary compensation as per the legal provisions. However, the payment is often tardy. In any case, it cannot sustain the displaced families for long. These people do not possess marketable skills to engage in some other occupation. They end up as low paid migrant labourers. Moreover, their traditional ways of community living are destroyed. Thus, the benefits of development go to industries, industrialists and urban communities whereas the costs are passed on to these poor helpless people. This unjust distribution of costs and benefits is unethical.
Suppose you have been entrusted with the task of drafting a better compensation-cum-rehabilitation policy for such displaced persons, how would you approach the problem and what would be the main elements of your suggested policy ?
Approach · directive: “how would you approach / what would be the main elements”
What it asks · Explain how a policymaker would approach the unfair sharing of costs and benefits of development, and set out the main elements of a fair compensation and rehabilitation policy.
It asks 2 things — answer each
- Explain how you would approach the problem of the unjust distribution of the costs and benefits of development
- Set out the main elements of your suggested compensation-cum-rehabilitation policy
Open with · Development for the many, costs for the few: Rawls's view that the least advantaged are owed reciprocity 'as a matter of basic justice', not charity; displaced Adivasis and villagers are such people.
Cover
- Stakeholders: displaced families including the landless and forest dwellers, host villages, industry and cities that gain, and the State that must balance them.
- Approach: displacement as last resort, the affected as partners, no family a net loser (Article 39(b)); consult gram sabhas; build on the 2013 Act.
- Options weighed in a table: cash only, land for land, and jobs, annuity or benefit share; the policy combines all three.
- Avoid and consent: Scheduled Areas only as a demonstrable last resort; social impact assessment; 80% and 70% consent; Niyamgiri (2013) gram sabha role.
- Full, timely compensation: 100% solatium; land taken only after compensation within three months and monetary rehabilitation within six months of the award.
- Livelihood and benefit sharing: land for land, a job after skill training or an annuity, community resettlement, District Mineral Foundations.
- Long-term safeguards: one accountable agency, ring-fenced funds, rehabilitation before construction, a family database, social audit and a grievance forum.
Close with · Development is just only when those who pay its price share its gains; rehabilitation as a precondition, not an afterthought, turns the displaced from victims of growth into its stakeholders.
Add value (verified)
- Article 39(b) directs State policy toward distributing community resources for the common good, supporting the ethical case for sharing project benefits fairly.The Constitution of India (as on 1 May 2024), Article 39(b) — Legislative Department ↗“the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good”
- Rawls: the least advantaged are not objects of charity or pity but those to whom reciprocity is owed as a matter of basic justice.John Rawls — Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ↗““The least advantaged are not, if all goes well, the unfortunate and unlucky—objects of our charity and compassion, much less our pity—but those to whom reciprocity is owed as a matter of basic justice” ( JF , 139).”
- RFCTLARR Act, 2013, s. 2(2): acquisition for private companies needs the prior consent of at least 80% of affected families, and for PPP projects at least 70%.Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — bare Act (High Court of Tripura) ↗“(i) private companies, the prior consent of at least eighty per cent, of those affected families, as defined in sub-clauses (i) and (v) of clause (c) of section 3; and (ii) public private partnership projects, the prior consent of at least seventy per cent. of those affected families”
- RFCTLARR Act, 2013, s. 41: as far as possible no acquisition in Scheduled Areas; where it happens, only as a demonstrable last resort and with prior consent of the gram sabha or panchayat.Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — bare Act (High Court of Tripura) ↗“(1) As far as possible, no acquisition of land shall be made in the Scheduled Areas. (2) Where such acquisition does take place it shall be done only as a demonstrable last resort. (3) In case of acquisition or alienation of any land in the Scheduled Areas, the prior consent of the concerned Gram Sabha”
- Orissa Mining Corporation v MoEF (Niyamgiri), Supreme Court, 18 April 2013: the gram sabha to decide on the community's claims within three months before the final decision on Stage II forest clearance.Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd vs Ministry of Environment & Forest & Ors, 18 April 2013 — Supreme Court (Indian Kanoon) ↗“We are, therefore, inclined to give a direction to the State of Orissa to place these issues before the Gram Sabha with notice to the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India and the Gram Sabha would take a decision on them within three months”
- RFCTLARR Act, 2013, s. 30(1): the Collector must add a solatium equal to 100% of the compensation amount.Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — bare Act (High Court of Tripura) ↗“The Collector having determined the total compensation to be paid, shall, to arrive at the final award, impose a “Solatium” amount equivalent to one hundred per cent. of the compensation amount.”
- RFCTLARR Act, 2013, s. 38(1): possession only after compensation is paid within three months, and the monetary part of rehabilitation within six months, of the award.Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — bare Act (High Court of Tripura) ↗“The Collector shall take possession of land after ensuring that full payment of compensation as well as rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements are paid or tendered to the entitled persons within a period of three months for the compensation and a period of six months for the monetary part of rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements listed in the Second Schedule commencing from the date of the award made under section 30”
- RFCTLARR Act, 2013, Second Schedule, item 4: affected families get a choice of annuity or employment, a job being offered after suitable training and skill development.Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — bare Act (High Court of Tripura) ↗“Choice of Annuity or Employment The appropriate Government shall ensure that the affected families are provided with the following options: (a) where jobs are created through the project, after providing suitable training and skill development in the required field, make provision for employment”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2016, GS Paper IV — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 1 Oct 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer· 374words · Minimalist IAS
Development for the many, costs for the few. Rawls held that the least advantaged are owed reciprocity "as a matter of basic justice", not charity; displaced Adivasis and villagers are such people.
Stakeholders
- Who bears, who gains: displaced families, including the landless and forest dwellers, lose land, livelihood and community; host villages absorb newcomers; industry and cities gain; the State must balance them.
How I would approach the problem
- Principles: displacement as a last resort; the affected as partners; no family a net loser; Article 39(b) asks that community resources serve the common good.
- Method: consult gram sabhas and tribal representatives before drafting, and build on the 2013 Act.
| Model | Merits | Demerits |
|---|---|---|
| Cash only | Quick, simple | Soon spent; no livelihood |
| Land for land | Keeps farming life | Land scarce, often poorer |
| Jobs, annuity, benefit share | Lasting income, a stake | Needs skills and monitoring |
- Choice: combine all three, with cash for the loss, livelihood for the future and a share in the gains.
Main elements of the suggested policy
- Avoid and minimise: alternative sites and designs; in Scheduled Areas, acquisition only "as a demonstrable last resort" with the gram sabha's prior consent.
- Consent and voice: a social impact assessment with public hearings; consent of 80% of affected families for private and 70% for PPP projects; in Niyamgiri (2013) the Supreme Court let the gram sabha decide the community's claims before final clearance.
- Full and timely compensation: as the 2013 Act requires, a solatium equal to 100% of the compensation, and possession only after compensation is paid within three months, and monetary rehabilitation within six months, of the award.
- Livelihood, not just cash: land for land where possible; a choice of a job after skill training or an annuity; houses with water, school and health care; communities resettled together.
- Benefit sharing: equity or royalty, District Mineral Foundations under the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015, and preference in project jobs and contracts.
Long-term and institutional safeguards
- One accountable agency: ring-fenced funds, rehabilitation completed before construction, a database of every affected family, independent social audit and a time-bound grievance forum.
Development is just only when those who pay its price share its gains. Making rehabilitation a precondition, not an afterthought, turns the displaced from victims of growth into its stakeholders.
Prepared by Minimalist IAS to the answer standard of Shivam Singh (mentor, 7 years) · facts checked against official sources (how we verify) · updated 1 Oct 2026. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.
